Class 




Book _^ 



{km^htW^^^/^ ^. 



COH^-RIGHT DEPOSIT 



The Police Control of the Slave 
in South Carolina 




BY 
H. M. HENRY, M. A* 



The Police Control of the Slave 
in South Carolina 

a dissertation submitted to the faculty of 

Vanderbilt University in Partial 

Fulfillment of the Requirements 

FOR THE Degree of Doctor 

of Philosophy 



/ 

BY 
H. M. HENRY, M. A. 
Pr§jessor of History and Economics 
Emory and Henry College 



EMORY, VIRGINIA 
1914 







Copyright 1914 
BY H. M. HENRY 



NOV II 1914 
©CLA388359 "^^ 



I 



PREFACE 

IN THE FALL of 1909 the late Professor Frederick 
W. Moore sug'gested to me as a topic for investiga- 
tion, the poUce control of the negro in the period of 
1861-1865 and following years. It was his suggestion that 
by using several states as illustrations I should show to what 
extent the Southern people sought to perpetuate not 
slavery, but the same method of controlling the emanci- 
pated negro which was in force under the slavery regime, 
the difficulties which were met with from without and the 
measure of success attained. The first question arising 
was: what was that method? It was soon evident that 
the laws on the statute books did not adequately answer 
the question. To get a clear understanding of that system 
another question, or two other questions, had to be answered : 
to what extent were these laws enforced; and, what extra 
legal method may have been resorted to in a system so 
flexible as slavery was? These questions caused the mono- 
graph to assume large proportions; for in only a few of 
the states has the history of slavery been written. Be- 
ginning in South Carolina, my native state, I soon became 
attracted by the possibilities of a study of the institution 
of slavery from this point of view of slave control in one of 
the oldest communities. Hence in order to bring this 
within the compass of a doctoral dissertation, at the later 
suggestion of Professor Sioussat, I limited the study to 
one state and to a study of the ante-bellum period, at- 
tempting, as far as possible, to show to what extent the 
laws were enforced. It is my hope, at some later time, to 
be able, with this study as a basis, to answer the original 
question as it affects South Carolina. 

It affords me pleasure to acknowledge assistance in the 
way of helpful suggestions and criticism from Professors 
Sioussat, Dyer and Mims of the Vanderbilt Faculty; 
Professor U. B. Phillips, of the University of Michigan, 
and T. D. Jervey, Esq., of Charleston. To Miss Fitz- 



iv Prefact 

Simmons and her assistants at the Charleston Library; 
Miss Webber, of the South CaroHna Historical Society; 
A. S. Salley, Jr., of the South CaroHna Historical Commis- 
sion; Miss Rion, of the South Carolina University Library; 
and the County Clerks of Court of several counties in the 
State, I am indebted for assistance in collecting materials. 
To these and others who have lent me aid I wish to take 
this opportunity of expressing my appreciation. 

H. M. HENRY. 

Vanderbilt University 

Nashville, Tenn., April 1, 1913. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTORY SKETCH 

Page 

1. Physiographic Conditions in the State 1 

2. Summary of Settlement and Development, 1670-1860 1 

3. Crops Grown — Cotton as a Staple 2 

4. Statistical Review of Slavery Before 1860 3 

5. Influence of Barbadian Slave Code upon South Carolina 

Slave Code 4 

6. Relation of Slave System of South Carolina to other Slave 

Systems 4 

7. Evolution of the Idea of Slave Control from that of the 

White Indented Servant 5 

8. Development of the Plan of Control; Codes of 1712 and 1740 6 

CHAPTER II 

LEGAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE 

1. Interpretation by the Courts of the Slave Code 6 

2. Expediency of Enforcing Slave Laws — Phillips' Idea 7 

3. "Slaves" Defined — Testing of Freedom 7 

4. Legal Determination of Color in the Case of Mulattoes. ... 8 

5. Roman Law Applies to Carolina Slaves 10 

6. Slaves and the Common Law 11 

7. Conservative Character of the Code 11 

8. The Slave as a Member of the Family 12 

9. Crimes of Slaves Committed by Order of the Master 14 

10. No Legal Standing for the Slave in the Courts 15 

11. Negroes as Witnesses in Court; Reward for Evidence 

Given by Negroes 15 

CHAPTER III 

THE OVERSEER 

1. The Requirement to Keep a White Person on the Plan- 

tation 18 

2. The Position of the Overseer 21 

3. Extracts from Contemporary Sources Relative to Overseers. . 23 
5. Negro Drivers 26 



vi Table oj Contents 

CHAPTER IV 

THE PATROL SYSTEM 

1. Conditions Making a Patrol Necessary 28 

2. The Written "Pass" or "Ticket" 29 

3. Evolution of the Patrol System 31 

4. The Patrol and its Regulation 31 

5. The Patrol Law of 1740 34 

6. Enforcement of Patrol Duty Until 1819 35 

7. Patrol Law of 1819 36 

8. Enforcement of the Later Law 38 

9. The Patrol in the Cities and Towns 42 

10. Conditions in Charleston and the Patrol There 44 

11. The Charleston Work House 46 

12. Minor Police Ordinances in Charleston 48 

13. Reports of Mayors on the Policing of the Negroes in 

Charleston 49 

14. Policing of Charleston Neck 50 

CHAPTER V 

PUNISHMENT OF SLAVES 

1. Whipping as a Punishment for Slaves 52 

2. Plantation Management 53 

3. Examples of Punishment 53 

4. Transportation as Punishment 55 

5. Offenses Capital when Committed by a Negro 56 

6. Payment by the State for the Value of the Slave 57 

CHAPTER VI 

THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF SLAVES 

1. The Organization of the Court 58 

2. Criticisms of the Court 59 

3. Summary of the Evils of this Method of Trial 60 

4. Two Illustrations of a Slave Court 61 

5. Remedies Suggested ' 63 

6. Modifications of the Court 63 

CHAPTER VII 

RELATION BETWEEN NEGROES AND WHITES 

1. Laws to Protect Slaves from Cruelly 66 

2. Agitation for a Change of the Law on the Murder of Negroes. 67 

3. Penalty Under the Law of 1821 and the Interpretation by the 

Court 68 



Table of Contents vii 

4. Enforcement of the Law Against Slave Murder 69 

5. Cruelty to Slaves, the Law and its Enforcement 75 

6. Conditions Connected with Cruelty to Slaves 77 

CHAPTER VIII 

TRADING WITH SLAVES 

L What Trading Involved 79 

2. Laws on Trading with Negroes 81 

3. Evils of Trading Law of 1817 82 

4. Slaves Allowed Land to Cultivate on Their Own Account.. . 85 

5. Enforcement of Law against Trading 86 

6. Extra Legal Dealing with the Trader 88 

7. Law of 1857 90 

8. Laws Against Selling Liquor to Slaves 91 

9. Enforcement of the Laws 93 

CHAPTER IX 

SLAVES. HIRING THEIR TIME 

1. Slavery an Agricultural System 95 

2. "Hiring Out" a Slave's Time 97 

3. Results of Plan of Hiring Slave's Time 98 

4. Opposition and Laws Dealing with It 99 

5. Non-enforcement of the Laws 99 

6. Industrial Competition Thereby Caused — Memorials to the 

Legislature and Reports upon Them 100 

CHAPTER X 

THE SLAVE TRADE— FOREIGN AND INTERSTATE 

1. Act of 1787 103 

2. 1803-1808— Foreign Trade 104 

3. Agitation to Re-open the Foreign Trade in the Fifties 105 

4. The Inter-State Traffic— Policy of 1816 and 1818 105 

5. Prohibition of the Entrance of Free Negroes 107 

CHAPTER XI 

STEALING AND HARBORING OF SLAVES AND KIDNAPPING 
OF FREE NEGROES 

1. The Crime and its Surrounding Conditions 108 

2. Slave Stealing Gangs and their Methods 109 

3. Enforcement of the Law Against Slave Stealing 110 

4. The Virginia and New York Case 113 

5. Harboring Runaways 114 



vili Table of Contents 

6. Kidnapping Free Negroes — Law of 1837 115 

7. Instances of Kidnapping 116 

CHAPTER XII 

RUNAWAY SLAVES 

1. Advertisement for Runaways 117 

2. Cause of Absconding 118 

3. Ultimate Purpose in Running Away 119 

4. Laws on Runaways ... 119 

5. Runaway Camps 120 

6. The Underground Railroads 123 

CHAPTER XIII 

THE SEAMEN ACTS 

1. Acts of 1822 and 1835 and Reasons For 124 

2. Conflict with Foreign Governments; Peter Petrie; Judge 

Johnson's Opinion 125 

3. Daniel Eraser Case 127 

4. Jim Jones Case 128 

5. Cases of Pereira and Roberts 128 

6. Protest from Massachusetts — Petition to Congress 129 

7. Hoar Sent as Agent to South Carolina 130 

8. Movement to Repeal the Seamen Acts 131 

9. Association to Enforce the Seamen Acts 132 

CHAPTER XIV 

GATHERINGS OF NEGROES 

1. Reasons for Laws Prohibiting Meetings of Negroes 133 

2. Provisions of Early Laws 134 

3. Laws of 1800 and 1803 134 

4. Bell vs. Graham, 1818 135 

5. Customs of Worship by Negroes 137 

6. Efforts at Instruction of Negroes Prior to 1830 138 

7. Meeting in Charleston Concerning Religious Conditions of 

Negroes 140 

8. The Negro Preacher 141 

9. Meetings Composed of Blacks Only 141 

10. Calvary Church in Charleston 143 

11. Negro Funerals 143 

12. Meetings of Negroes for Social Purposes 144 

13. The Boozer Case, 1850 146 



Table of Contents ix 

CHAPTER XV 

SLAVE INSURRECTIONS 

1. Danger from Insurrections 148 

2. Stone, 1739 149 

3. Camden, 1816 151 

4. Vesey Plot, 1822 152 

5 Effect of the Vesey Plot 153 

CHAPTER XVI 

ABOLITION AND INCENDIARY LITERATURE 

1 The Southern Idea of Abolitionism 154 

2. Laws of 1820 and 1823 155 

3. Abolition Literature 156 

4. The Charleston and Pendleton Post Office Robberies 156 

5. Protective Associations and Vigilance Committees 156 

6. Agitation Caused by the John Brown Raid; Organization 

of the Districts ] 60 

7. Act of 1859 against Incendiaries 162 

8. The Kingstree Incident 162 

CHAPTER XVII 

PROHIBITION OF EDUCATING THE NEGRO 

1. Law of 1740 on Teaching Slaves to Write 164 

2. The Charleston School for Negroes 165 

3. Agitation after 1830; Law of 1834 166 

CHAPTER XVIII 

MANUMISSION 



Manumission before 1800 168 

Law of 1800 168 

Evils of Manumission as Seen by Southern People 169 

Law of 1820 170 

Freedom by Bequest 171 

Manumission and the Courts 172 

The Carmille Case; Law of 1841 172 

Sentiment on Emancipation 174 



X Table of Contents 

CHAPTER XIX 

THE FREE NEGRO 

1. Statistics, Status, etc., of Free Negro 176 

2. Law of 1820 I77 

3. Guardian for Free Negroes 178 

4. Legal Status of Free Negro 180 

5. Discriminations against the Free Negro 182 

6. Prejudice against the Free Negro 184 

7. Agitation for the Rc-Enslavement of the Free Negro 186 

CONCLUSION 190 

APPENDIX 193 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 198 

BIOGRAPHICAL 216 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 



CHAPTER I 
Introductory Sketch 

South Carolina is situated between ?)2° and 36° north 
latitude, and 78° and 84° longitude west of Greenwich. 
The "fall line" extends from near North Augusta on the Sa- 
vannah River in a straight line to Columbia and thence to 
the North Carolina boundary- near the place where the 
Great Peedee enters the state. The portion of the state 
north of this line with its rapidly running rivulets, rolling, 
rocky and often sterile hills, red with iron deposits, is known 
as the "up country." The northwestern corner of the 
state, crossed by a part of the AUeghaney range, is decidedly 
mountainous. Below the fall line are often found consider- 
able tracts of sandy, barren land covered in places with 
shrubbery, broken occasionally by strips of fine farming 
land. Extending toward the eastern corner is some of 
the best cotton producing soil in the state. Going further 
toward the south the rivers become sluggish and trespass 
on the bottom lands forming extensive swamps witli a 
tendency to malaria, a condition more or less continuous 
until the coast is reached.* 

The first permanent settlement was made near Charles- 
ton in 1670. The government was administered by the 
Proprietors, to whom the territory had been granted by 
the king, until 1719, when owing to continual disagreement 
between the Proprietors and the settlers the colony was 
made a Royal Province. Until about the middle of the 
eighteenth century, when a treaty was made with the 
Indians by which land concessions were obtained, there 
were no settlements in the upper part of the state other 

*For a good summary of the physiographic conditions of the dif- 
ferent sections of the state as they affected its history, sec Schaper: 
Sectionalism in South CaroHna, Amer. Hist, \ss\\. Reports 1900, 
vol. I, pp. 253-258. 



2 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

than mere trading posts. South Carolinians took a promi- 
nent part in the revolutionary movements of 1776 and later; 
and after the conflict their leaders participated very largely 
in the affairs of the young nation. The Federalist leaders 
in South Carolina toward the close of the century had to 
give way before the rise of the Republican party. A new 
generation of statesmen with leaders like Lowndes and 
Calhoun soon took an influential part in national politics 
involving the issues arising in the war of 1812 and the coun- 
try's growth after that conflict. Later, however, the dis- 
agreements over the tariff leading up to the Nullification 
troubles caused the state to lose prestige in Congress. 
Under the leadership of Calhoun, who in a sense represented 
the slavery interests of the South, the attitude of the state 
until 1860 became one of distrust of the federal govern- 
ment, and from a place of prominence in the councils of 
the nation she pursued a policy of resistance all her own 
which finally culminated in secession in 1860. 

Now we turn to the economic life of the people. Con- 
siderable time was spent by the colonists in experimenting 
with crops to find one sufficiently profitable to render the 
colony self-supporting. Rice, it was soon discovered, could 
be grown to advantage and for a century it remained the 
most important crop. Indigo growing also, thanks to the 
experiment of Eliza Lucas, came to be a profitable industry 
owing to the encouragement it received from bounties 
of the British government. These bounties ceased with 
the breaking out of the Revolution, after which the indigo 
industry waned. But not until the invention of the 
cotton gin toward the close of the eighteenth century did 
the state co me to have a staple crop greatly in demand and 
at the same time one almost uniformly adapted to the 
soil in practically all sections. It had been observed that 
none but negro labor could flourish in the low swampy 
country. This fact had given impetus to the importation 
of African slaves before the up-country was opened to 
settlement. It was soon discovered after the stimulation 
given cotton culture by the invention of a machine to 
separate the seed from the lint that slave labor could be 
used to greatest advantage in cotton growing. This 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 3 

discovery determined the economic policy of the state and 
fastened slavery upon its social organization. This was 
true of the up-country as well as of the low-country and 
gradually made the state a unit in its policy with reference 
to slavery. 

As we have seen, slavery had acquired a strong foothold 
in the state before the cotton industry became prominent. 
Not only the need of cheap labor, but the cupidity of the 
English slave trader was a contributing cause to the growth 
of sla^'ery. This slave trade to America was protected 
by the English government often in the face of protests 
made by the colonies. Slaves were first introduced into 
the colony from the Barbadoes in 1671 by Sir John Yeamans. 
The number grew from year to year both by increase of 
the native born and by importations until in 1708 it is 
estimated to have been 4,100t. Within about a quarter 
of a century the number is estimated to have been, in 
1735, 40,000. It is probable that at the outbreak of the 
Revolutionary war the number had reached nearly 100,000*. 
According to the first federal census of 1790 the number of 
slaves in the state was 108,805. The colored population 
increased steadily in an almost uniform ratio until 1860, 
the official enumeration of that year being: slaves, 402,406; 
free colored, 9,914, or a total of 412,320 negroes in the state. 
A few figures as to their distribution will be interesting. 
Hamm.ond sayst that in 1790 the "upper and middle regions" 
of South Carolina had only about 28,000 slaves out of a total 
for the state of 108,805. Schaper§ for the purposes of his 
study of sectionalism in the state deduces the following 
interesting figures from the census of 1860: there were 

fThese figures are taken from careful comparative estimate made in 
the appendix, p. 115, of Whitney's "Government in the Colony of 
South Carolina." Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, I7th series, 1 and 2. 

*For 1775 Whitney's lowest estimate is 80,000 and highest 104,000. 
For 1776 DeBow (Industrial Resources of the South and West, vol. 
Ill, 130) places it at 110,000. Compare this with the official census 
of 1790 given below. 

tThe Cotton Industry, p. 28, 

§P. 391. 



4 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

26,701 slave owners in the state with an average of fifteen 
slaves to each owner; the average per owner in the low- 
country was twenty-one, while in the up-country it was 
eleven; the largest plantation was in Georgetown with 
one thousand slaves; seven plantations employed five 
hundred slaves each; twenty-two had three hundred each. 
He estimates that there were 26,701 households interested 
in slavery as against 31,559 households not so interested. 

McCrady has shown very conclusively* the influence of 
the Barbadian slave code upon the Carolina code of 1712. 
Both had identical preambles. A comparison of some of 
the provisions of the two codes reveal further similarities 
in the following particularsf : no white person was to suffer 
punishment for injuring or killing a slave who resisted 
lawful chastisement; at fi.rst only a fine was imposed upon 
a white person for the murder of a negro, although later, 
as in South Carolina, the penalty was made death ; the slave 
was denied the right of self defense against a white person ; 
negro evidence against a white person was not accepted 
in any court; mutilation and other graduated punishments 
were provided for slaves; the court for the trial of slaves 
was composed of magistrates and freeholders, though a 
unanimous verdict was necessary for conviction of a capital 
offense, which was not the case in South Carolina. It 
is no more than a fair conclusion that the code of the Eng- 
lish Barbadoes was the basis of the Carolina code. 

J. C. Ballagh, who in his History of Slavery in Virginia 
has elaborated the legal phase of slavery, thinks it is difficult 
to say how far Spanish slavery in America influenced 
English slavery, but probably if there was any influence 
at all it was very slight. This suggests another inquiry 
to which the following pages will revert: to what extent 
can these American codes be traced, if at all, to the ancient 

*South Carolina Under the Royal Government, p. 46. Slavery 
in tlic Province of South Carolina, p. 645, Anier. Hist. Assn. Reports 
1895. 

fPoyer: History of the Barbadoes, pp. 132-144. A summary of 
the provisions of the code of 1688 is here given. 



Co?itrol of Slaves in South Carolina 5 

slavery of the Greeks and Romans? Of this Ballagh saysf 
that it is "one of institutional similarity rather than causal 
relation." It was after the system was a realized fact that 
writers and jurists turned to the institutions of decayed 
civilizations for comparisons and authoritv. 

But if we turn to the system of indented servitude we 
probably get the germ idea of the laws for slave control. 
The white redemptioner was sold for a term of service 
along with the slave, the chief difTerence between his 
status and that of the slave being that the former labored 
under an indenture for a limited time, the latter under an in- 
denture for life. The laws prevented the indented servant 
from buying or selling by providing punishment for any per- 
son who traded with him ; he was not allowed to leave the 
master's premises without permission; an offense against a 
servant was not so heavily punished as one against a freeman ; 
he was subject to correction with moderate chastisement 
by the master; when he ran away his term of service was 
lengthened on his re-capture; he received from the master 
a certificate of freedom at the end of his term of servitude. 
The term of service in the case of the indented servant 
was limited, in that of the slave it was for life,— this con- 
trast marks the point of departure in dealing with an in- 
dented ser\^ant and in dealing with a slave; the latter was 
serving a term for life, hence corporal punishment as a 
penalty was resorted to more freely. This view led to the 
more general idea, that the master ought to be gi\'en 
complete control over the slave, with some limitations, of 
course. The earliest preserved laws of the colony show little 
or no distinction between the white servant and the black 
slave as to control and management. But the number of 
slaves increased so rapidly and their barbaric character 
was so pronounced that a more comprehensive policy 
had to be sought. The regulations which were sufficient 
for a small number of white servants, indented for a limited 
period of time, were found to be quite inadequate for the 
large number of blacks owned absolutely by the white 
man. Here the differentia tion seems to have begun, and 

tPoyer: History of the Barbadoes, p. 2. 



6 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

so at about this stage of development the government 
turned to the EngHsh plantation system of the West 
Indies for suggestions which took form in the Carolina 
slave code. 

The system of control as we know it during the last half 
century of the existence of slavery in the South is clearly 
a development from conditions arising out of the presence 
in the colony of the African negroes with barbaric traits. 
These laws were amended and added to as the needs of 
the master required from time to time, and as the necessity 
for peace and good order in the community seemed to 
demand. A few acts were passed before 1712 but it was 
in that year that the first elaborate law for the control of the 
slaves was enacted. This act was completely revised and 
replaced by a more comprehensive law passed in 1740, 
commonly known as the Negro Law. This law of 1740 
was re-enacted after the Revolutionary war, and until 
1860. though amended, remained the organic black code. 
Other amendatory acts were passed from time to time 
but the law of 1740 remained the basis of all later slave 
regulation 



CHAPTER II 
Legal Status of the Slave 

After some method had come to be applied in the control 
and management of the blacks the courts began to inter- 
pret the system of slavery and the relations of the master 
to his slave, and to give some fixed legal form to the insti- 
tution. It may be observed at the outset that the decisions 
of the courts are along the lines of expediency and that 
no fine-spun theory interfered with the early established 
practical management of the slave. The court for the 
most part defines what the codes and customs developed 
into laws are, enforcing its mandates of humanity toward 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 7 

the ward and encouraging in a conservative way all philan- 
thropic movements toward a more Hberal interpretation 
of the institution. 

Of the general control of the black population in the 
ante-bellum South Professor Phillips says in substance* 
that they were controlled more by men than by laws; 
that the statutes were placed on the books chiefly for 
emergency use, but under ordinary circumstances many of 
them were dead letters. This seems to be the correct 
view. For example, the law to prohibit trading with a 
slave without permission from the master was very strin- 
gent and often vigorously enforced when the trading was 
done by persons who deliberately undertook to gain ad- 
vantage by the theft of the slave. When, however, the 
slave was selling his own produce with the permission of 
his master bargains were openly made and no complaint 
arose. On the other hand the Seamen Acts, prohibiting 
the presence of free negroes openly at the ports when they 
were members of crews of visiting ships, were apparently 
always enforced to the letter. The subject then presents 
the difficulty of determining to what extent the laws were 
carried out. 

The Act of 1712 1 declared that all negroes, mulattoes 
and mustizoes who had "been sold, or now are held or 
taken to be, or hereafter shall be bought or sold for slaves, 
are hereby declared slaves" together with their children. 
The determination of the condition of the child as to slavery 
or freedom was made to depend upon the status of the 
child's mother. Slaves were in this act defined as "in the 
law to be chattels personal in the hands of their owner ."§ 
There must have been, even at that time, a considerable 
number of free negroes and it does not appear that public 
sentiment tolerated any effort to reduce a free person of 

*Article, "Racial Problems, Adjustments and Disturbances in the 
Ante-Bellum South," by Professor U. B. Phillips, in The South in the 
Building of the Nation, vol. IV, p. 200. 

fStatutes at Large, VII, 352, sec. 1. 

^Before this they had been considered sometimes as chattels and 
sometimes as real estate. Schaper, 311 Amer. Hist. Repts. 1900, vol. 1. 



8 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

color to sla\'er\- wlien his title to freedom was unquestion- 
al)Ie. This act further provided that in case any negro 
claimed to be held unjustly in slavery when he had the 
rij;i;ht to freedom any white person could apply to the courts 
in his behalf and secure appointment as guardian, and 
after entering into bond guaranteeing to produce the negro 
whenever the court might demand him, have a hearing 
on the merits of the case, the burden of proof resting with 
the plaintiff. If the negro should be declared entitled to 
the right of freedom the defendants were to be held for 
the costs of the trial. But if the defendant should win the 
suit the court might inflict such punishment upon the 
negro "nol extending to life or limb as in the opinion of 
the court is fit." Thus it would seem that the difificulties 
were great even where a negro had a good case. Having 
no legal standing in the courts he must secure as his guard- 
ian some interested white person; and he must then prove 
his right to freedom, though himself disqualified as a witness, 
while the defense was under no obligation to offer testi- 
mony; and corporal punishment, which if ordered b\ the 
court in case of the failure of his contention, probably 
awaited him at the hands of the master whose claim had 
been questioned — all of which he w'as doubtless made 
aware. These hindrances doubtless prevented all but the 
clearest cases, and those demanded by the sentiments of 
humanity, from coming to the courts at all. It was prob- 
ably intended to reach only cases of free negroes who 
had been kidnapped and sold into slavery. 

There were some such cases tried. One that is left on 
record is that of Miller vs. Reigne* heard by the Court 
of Appeals in 1835. The court set free two colored women 
whom it declared to have been wrongfully held in slavery. 
The evidence on which the court reached its decision was 
that they had been acting as free persons for more than 
twenty years, and that this presumed a deed of manumission 
prior to 1820. 

The question occasionally arose as to the proportion of 
negro blood required to constitute a negro in the eyes of 

♦2 Hill (Law Reports), 592. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 9 

the law. This is important, for if determined a negro, 
the person is not entitled to jury trial nor is he capable 
of giving evidence in court against a white person. Judge 
O'Neall, for many years a justice of the highest court, in 
his manual, "The Negro Law in South Carolina, "f after 
stating that no specific rule had been laid down, says that 
it is a question for the jury, but indicates that if it is made 
to appear that if the person has less than one-eighth of negro 
blood in his veins the jury ought to find him white, and if 
more than one-fourth they "must find him a negro." The 
Court of Appeals had been called upon before this to de- 
termine the matter but went no further than to say that 
the court may determine by inspection of features or repu- 
tation as to amount of negro blood and also as to whether 
he had been received in society as a white person.* 

The sessions record of Kershaw district for the fall term 
of 1845 contains the following: 

In the Matter of Wm. Scott. 

Jury No. 2 tried this case and returned the fol- 
lowing verdict: We find the relator, Wm. Scott, 
to be a free negro, mulatto or mustizo. 

, Foreman. 

This verdict must have been set aside — though the record 
does not show it — or there was another "Wm. Scott," 
for on April 6, 1847, he was found guilty of assault and 
battery on a slave, and on April 8 sentenced to one month's 
imprisonment. At the spring term in 1846 it appears 
that the question of the color of four persons was submitted 
to a jury, probably to determine whether or not they had 
standing in the session court, and they were officially found 
to be mulattoes. The sessions record of Marlborough 
district for 1850 notes that an indictment handed to the 

tPage 6. 

*1 Bailey (Law), 270: State vs. Scott, decided in 1829; 1 Bailey 
(Law), 275: State vs. Hayes, decided in 1829; 1 Bailey (Law), 294: 
State vs. Scott, decided in 1829; 1 Spears (Law), 268: Johnson vs. 
Boon, decided in 1843. 



10 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

grand jury was returned with the following endorsement 
signed by the foreman: 

"Wc report him a free person of color." 
But from what sources shall an interpretation of this 
new relation of whites and blacks to each other be had? 
The slave was not a chattel in the same sense that a lower 
animal was a chattel, but a person, in a limited legal sense 
it is true;* he did not enjoy the rights of equality with the 
white man, nor did he enjoy the same rights before the law. 
In a few cases the Court of Appeals undertook to answer 
the fundamental questions as to the legal status of the slave 
which might arise. In 1812 in the case of the F:xecutors 
of Walker vs. Bostick & Walkerf it was pointed out that 
the Roman Law and not the English Common Law was 
to be the guide and soupce of authority in interpreting 
the slave laws. The court said in part: 

The condition of slaves in this country is analog- 
ous to that of the slaves of the ancients, the Greeks 
and Romans and not that of the villeins of feudal 
times. They are, generally speaking, not considered as 
persons but as things. Almost all our statute regula- 
tions follow the principles of the civil law in relation 
to slaves except in a few cases, wherein the manners 
of modern times softened by the benign principles 
of Christianity could not tolerate ^the severity of 
the Roman regulations. But in most other respects 
they are considered as property." 
Again in 1835 the court had occasion to say:§ 

"The status, the entire civil and political condition 
of the villein, was in almost every particular different 
from that of our slave. He had a perfect civil and 
political capacity and all the rights of a freeman against 
every person but his lord; and with respect to the lord 
was very different from that of the slave." 

*1 Bay (Law), 358: State vs. Thackam & Mayson, decided in 1794; 
2 McCord (Law), 463: State vs. Calder, decided in 1823; 1 Spears (Law) 
13: State vs. Jackson & Montgomery, decided 1842. 

t4 DeSaussure (Equity Reports), 266. 

§2 Hill (Chancery Reports), 390: Fable vs. Brown. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 11 

As to the slave's rights under the common law the Con- 
stitutional Court in 1818 said if 

"The peace of society and the safety of individuals 
required that slaves should be subjected to the 
authority and control of all freemen when not under 
the immediate authority of their masters." 
And again in 1847:* 

"A slave can invoke neither Magna Charta nor 
common law. ... In the very nature of things he 
is subject to despotism. Law to him is only a com- 
pact between his rulers, and the questions which con- 
cern him are matters agitated between them. The 
various acts concerning slaves contemplates through- 
out the subordination of the servile class to every 
free white person and enforce the stern policy which 
the relation of master and slave necessarily requires. 
Any conduct of a slave inconsistent with due sub- 
ordination contravenes the purpose of these acts. 
. . . The prohibition of whatever is inconsistent with 
the relation established is of course implied." 
To this opinion of the majority of the court there was a 
strong dissenting opinion in which Justice O'Neal! takes 
the ground that the subordination of the one race to the 
other is "mere bench legislation," holding that specific 
enactment was necessary to make an act criminal; he 
further thought such a theory would lead to harm. 

The extreme conservative policy of the law-making 
body toward any change in the direction of a more liberal 
policy was felt by public men of the time as is evidenced 
in the following statement of a case by Judge Withers 
in 1850 :§ 

"Our fundamental code, now time-honored, is that 
of 1740. It was enacted soon after a violent, barbar- 
ous and somewhat servile bloody attack at Stono. Not 
a few of its provisions took their hue from the 
exigency of the occasion, and that it has faded some- 

tl Nott & McCord (Law), 182: Witsell vs. Parker. 
*2 Strobhart (Law), 43: Ex parte Boylston. 
§5 Strobhart (Law), 24: State vs. Boozer et al. 



12 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

what in the lapse of time is only the usual inevi- 
table consequence of all police systems in the shape of 
positive terms, which cannot have the quality to keep 
up with the advancement of a community." 
This tendency not to interfere in changing the slave code 
appeared in the failure of the General Assembly to heed 
the urgent request of Governor Wilson in his annual 
message in 1824 for a complete revision of these laws.* 
The slave being denied many of the rights granted to 
free whites, such as self-defense or the pursuit of his own 
happiness, some apparent compensation was attempted 
in an analogy, drawn possibly from Roman law or the 
natural justice of the situation which suggested the family 
relationship that ought in a measure to exist between the 
slave and the master. The religious literature, sermons 
and other documents having to do with the betterment of 
the condition of the slave almost uniformly held the slave- 
owner responsible before God for the moral and religious 
life of his slave, on the ground that he is placed in a sort 
of patriarchal relationship to his ward, who is not a chattel 
merely but also a person in the moral sense. Judge 
O'Neall, who wrote many of the decisions of the highest 
court on slavery questions and whose book, "The Slave 
Law of South Carolina," while it may bear the earmarks 
of haste, is still a most valuable compendium with comment 
on the legal phases of slavery, appears to have been in the 
forefront in a progressive interpretation of the slave system 
in the direction of its amelioration.! In the case of Tennent 

*Thc official (iocunienis containing the messages of the governors 
are in many cases lost, particularly those of the earlier ones. However, 
the reprints of nearly all of them may be found in the contemporary 
newspapers of the time. Complete files of several of the Charleston 
newspapers arc preserved in the Charleston Library. 

tjudge John Belton O'Neall (1793-1863) was of pure Irish ancestry, 
born in Newberry district where he spent his life. His parents were 
members of the Society of Friends. He graduated at the South Caro- 
lina College, and began the practice of law, serving for a while in the 
lower house of the General Assembly. In 1828 he was elected to the 
bench, being elevated later to the Court of Appeals and in 1859 to the 
highest justiceship, which he held until his death. Chapman: Annals 
of Newberry. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 13 

vs. Dendy, decided in 1837, speaking for the Court of Ap- 
peals, Judge O'Neall said of slaves if 

"They are human beings with passions and feel- 
ings like our own and with the same capability of 
right and wrong action. They, if in a state of nature, 
would have the right of self-protection which is given 
by the great Creator to e\'ery human being. Their 
transfer from a state of nature to a state of slavery in 
society has not destroyed the right of personal protec- 
tion; it has taken it from the slave and given it to 
the master. ... In the relation of master and servant 
the dependence of the latter on the form.er alone for 
protection cannot be too much encouraged. The slave 
ought to be fully aware that his master is to him what 
the best administered government is to the good 
citizen, a perfect security from injury. When this is 
the case the relation of master and servant becomes 
little short of that of parent and child — it commences 
in the weakness of the one and the strength of the 
other. Its benefits produce the corresponding con- 
sequences of deep and abiding grateful atteichments 
from the slave to the master, and hence result [many] 
instances of devotion." 
DeBow in his "Re\iew"* bears out this idea in a some- 
what practical wa}- In- sa\dng that usually slaves were more 
willing to obey an order if they knew that it came from the 
master direct than if it was merely from the overseer. 
This feeling would indicate that a sort of filial reverence 
for the master was showing itself in a recognition of his 
paternal relationship to them. 

Recognizing this same principle of the family relation- 
ship twenty years before the rendering of the abo\c de- 
cision the court maintained that a sla\e owner could be 
held liable in a civil suit for care and medical attention 
rendered by a physician who had cared for a slave that had 
been ill-treated and driven from home by her master. 
The court cites as a parallel case that of a wife driven 

tl Dudley (Law), 84. 
*XXI, 277. 



14 Control of Slaves in South Carolinn 

from her husband's home by the husband and destitute, 
arguing that the person who should provide her the neces- 
sities of Hfe could recover damages of the husband. The 
court says:* 

"The master is bound by the most solemn obligation 
to protect his sla\e from suffering, he is l)ound by the 
same obligations to defray the expenses or services of 
another to preserve the sla^e from pain and danger. 
The slave lives for his master's service. His time, 
his labor, his comforts, are all at his master's disposal. 
The duty of humane treatment and of medical assist- 
ance when clearly necessary ought not to be with- 
holden."t 
The act of 1740 protected a slave who committed a 
crime in defense of his master. This quasi-feudal regu- 
lation seems inconsistent with the rule that no slave was 
allowed to protect himself in self-defense against a white 
man. The latter was probably made with a \'iew to a more 
complete subjection of the black to the white race; the form- 
er with a view to encourage his making the master's interest 
his own interest, the purpose being then to hold the master 
responsible for the consequences. Furthermore a slave 
committing a crime at the comm.and of the master is not 
to be held responsible.? If "the slave acting without a 
will but by his master's compulsion" should commit a 
homicide "he would be the bloody instrument of his cruelty, 
but might be guilty of no legal offense; the master would 
be guilty of murder." A slave who had killed another 
slave in Charleston was acquitted by a court for the trial 
of slaves in 1847 on the ground that he was acting on the 
authority of his mistress. The news item shows further 
that the case against the owner was docketed for the 
approaching term of court.* 

*2 Brevard (Law), 130: Fairchild vs. Bell, decided in 1807. 

tSee also, 2 Bailey (Law), 562: Johnson vs. Barrett, decided in 
1832, where medical assistance is called in by the slave herself without 
the knowledge or wish of her master, and the master is heid liable for 
the expenses. 

sBailey (Law), 66: State vs. Crank, decided in 1831. 

JThc Southern Chronicle (Columbia), Jan. 27, 1847. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 15 

There was another legal disability under which the slave 
labored. He could not bring an action of any kind in 
court in his own name. He could not prosecute for a 
battery, nor enter civil suit. He could not even begin 
legal proceedings to test his right to freedom. Only in 
the name of another, a white man as "next friend," could 
a test be made.* What is said of the slave in this respect 
is applicable to the free negro. In the case of the slave, 
the master was supposed to be the judge of whether an 
action was necessary; and in the case of the free negro 
some white person must become sufficiently interested in 
the cause to act as a "next friend." 

Because of the primitive condition of the slaves and free 
negroes and their lack of moral responsibility they were 
not admitted as witnesses competent to give evidence 
against a white person. It appears, however, that no 
specific law prevented the introduction of negro evidence 
against a white person, but that his legal disability as a 
witness was regarded as an axiom of law and common 
sense. The concessions made him in this respect arise 
more from the necessity of the circumstances of his relations 
than by his right. 

But from the first a slave's confession before the negro 
court was admitted as a plea in answer to any charge against 
him. His testimony, too, was admissible against another 
slave or free negro against whom no "Christian evidence" 
is presented and such slave or free negro was, according to 
the act of 1712, not to be convicted of an offense for which 
the penalty was loss of "limb or life" except by his own 
confession or by the "plain and positive evidence of two 
negroes or slaves, so circumstanced that there shall not be 
sufficient reason to doubt the truth" of their testimony 
and after the court has ascertained that they "bear no 
malice" to the accused. An exception to this was to be 
made in the case of murder in which the evidence of one 
slave might be sufficient if to the justice his testimony 
appeared to be plausible. The act of 1740 following this 

*3 Brevard (Law) 11: Susan, a free woman of color, vf. Wells, 
decided in 1811. 



16 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

made it clear that these regulations for the trial of slaves 
were applicable in toto to free negroes as well as slaves. 

There were, however, iiKlirect ways in which a negro's 
testimony might come to form a part of the evidence 
before a court of record. Information as to his bodily 
health confided to a physician, which formed a part of 
the doctor's physical examination of the slave, would be 
admissible as evidence.* The record of a court for negroes 
containing the confession of a slave as a part of evidence 
on which the sla\e was convicted of a felony might be given 
in the e\ idence in the trial of a free white man as an acces- 
sory before the fact.f 

In 2 Brexard Law Cases, page 145, is given a very short 
report of the case of the State vs. McDowell, heard in 
1807, on an appeal from conviction for assault in Green- 
\ille district, in which it appears that a free man of color 
had l)een admitted as a witness for the prosecution against 
a white man. It reads in part: 

"On motion it was determined in this court by all 
the judges that any person of color, if the issue of a 
free white woman, is entitled to g!^•e evidence and ought 
to be admitted as a witness in our courts." 

This pronouncemient of the court seems to be somewhat 
out of the ordinary as compared with later decisions. It 
nuist have been that the fairness of the hearing in this 
particular case, owing possibly to some peculiar circum- 
stances, was evident and that the ends of justice had been 
served. Hence in absence of an.y statutory provision to 
the contrary, "on motion" the judges determined what 
"ought" to be done. 

The highest court in two later instances, 1821^ and again 
in 1831^, stated, in the first, that a free person of color "is 
an incompetent witness, in any case, where the rights of 
white persons are concerned." In the latter it said in 

*1 Harper (Law), 38: Grey vs. Young, decided in 1823; I Dudley 
(Law), 327: McClintock vs. Hunter, decided in 1838. 
t2 Bailey (Law), 29: State vs. Sims, decided in 1830. 
§1 McCord (Law), 430: White vs. Helms. 
+2 in Bailey (Law), 192: Groning vs. Devarra. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 17 

part : "A free person of color is not a competent witness, in 
any case, in the courts of record of this state, although both 
"the parties to the suit are of the same class with himself." 

In 1751 an act,* after relating that there had been several 
executions of slaves for poisoning, and after providing 
for a more vigorous punishment of such offenses, offered 
to any slave or free negro who would give information 
of an attempt of any slave to poison his master a reward 
of four pounds provided such information led to the slave's 
conviction. But if any slave should suffer as a result of 
any such testimony which afterwards turned out to be false, 
the unfaithful witness was subjected to the same penalty 
as is assessed for the crime. The difficulty here was prob- 
ably as it was later: it was difficult to get one slave to in- 
form against another. Mr. Seabrook, in a pamphlet on 
the management of slaves, published in 1834t, says that 
this was one of the things that most interfered with the 
police control of the slaves. Again, the negro was used 
to effect in securing evidence against persons charged with 
negro trading and liquor selling.? 

While perhaps it is true that the slaves were a closed 
group on smaller offenses like petty theft, they would 
betray more serious crimes of their fellows. It was in 
this way that the proposed Camden insurrection of 1816 
was disclosed.^ In 1817 the General Assembly authorized 
the Governor to purchase the freedom of the servant, 
appropriating $1,100 for the purpose and providing an 
annual pension of $50 for him after he should be set free. 1 1 
A lasting debt of gratitude was, of course, considered to be 
due faithful slaves who revealed the plot for an uprising 
in Charleston in 1822, which the Legislature meeting soon 
after sought to repay by voting Peter, a slave belonging 
to John C. Prioleau, the expenses of his emancipation and 

*Statutes at Large, VII, 422, sees. 7 and 8. 
tQuoted in Harrison: Gospel Among the Slaves, p. 102. 
§In an editorial in the Rising Sun (Newberry), Mar. 10, 1855, com- 
plaint is made that negroes are paid to secure such evidence. 
^Governor's annual message to General Assembly, 1816. 
I [statutes at Large, VI, 58, sec. 2. 



18 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

an annual pension of $50 during his lifetime, or in case he 
should prefer to remain in servitude or his master should 
refuse to set him free the annual allowance was to be in- 
creased to $100.* It may interest the reader to know that this 
same negro, who it appears did actually secure his freedom, 
was still living in 1857, and that the Legislature not forget- 
ful of his sei"\ ices, raised his pension to $200 per annum to 
be paid in ([uarterly installments. f 



CHAPTER 111 
The Overseer 

An overseer was necessary for the proper control and 
management of the negroes on a plantation. He was not 
only an economic necessity to the plantation, but he accjuir- 
ed the character of a plantation quasi-police officer by virtue 
of the legal provision that all slaveowners were required 
to have white men on their plantations, in cases where 
the owners were not resident throughout the year. The 
Act of 1712§ provided a penalty of a fine of forty shillings 
in the case of any person who should establish and maintain 
a plantation or stock farm and keep on such farm six 
"negroes or slaves" without one or more white persons 
residing on the same. In 1714 the colonial authorities, 
uneasy on account of the great increase in the number of 
slaves in the province, laid a duty on the importation of 
slaves. To this the British slave traders made objection, 
and the lords proprietors suggested as a substitute that 
an act be passed requiring every planter to keep at least 
one white man to every negro on his plantation.'^ Fol- 

*Statutes at Large, VI, 194. 

tStatutes at Large, XII, 562. 

§Section 29. 

jSchapcr: Sectionalism in South Carolina, 302, 308. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 19 

lowing this there, was an act with the express purpose of 
encouraging white laborers to settle in the colony which 
required planters to employ one white man for every ten 
negroes used, and one white man for every two thousand 
acres of land held. For every three months the planta- 
tion was without this proportion a fine of £10 was to accrue 
except that one month might be allowed for providing 
the required number of whites in case any of the whites 
should run away.* 

The Act of 1740 recited the following reason for the 
later provision: "Whereas plantations settled with slaves 
without any white person thereon may be harbors for 
runaways and fugitive slaves."§ It may have been merely 
to meet the requirements of the letter of the Act of 1712 
that a white person lame or decrepit, not capable of manag- 
ing the negroes on a plantation and not intended to control 
it was kept on the place where slaves were located. But 
this act provided that no plantation was to be without a 
white person for every twenty-five slaves. A fine of 
twenty shillings for each month during which this regu- 
lation was not observed was the penalty. The Act of ISOOf 
required the tax collector to have CA^ery slaveholder to 
take oath that either he lived on his plantation or had a 
white m.an for every ten slaves on the plantation. Three 
months was allowed for the owner to secure another o\-er- 
seer when one left. 

Probably with a view to accommod?iting some sla^'e 
owners, who on account of malarial conditions did not 
live on their plantations during the whole of the year, 
the patrol law of 1819 provided that any slaveowner who 
did not live on his plantation seven months during the 
year and who had on it ten working slaves must have an 
overseer on the place on penalty for failure of a fine of 
fifty cents per month for each slave. This was interpreted, 
in 1825, by the Court of Appeals in the case of the State 
vs. Blythet to mean that a woman who lived on the edge 

♦Statutes at Large III, 272; Act of 1726. 
§Sec. 46, p. 413. 

tStatutes at Large, VII, 440, sec. 5. 
X3 McCord (Law), 363. 



20 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

of her plantation for seven months of the year fulfilled the 
requirements of the law, a woman legally taking the place 
of a man. The patrol law of 1839 amends the former by 
suljstituting a residence of six months for seven and making 
the maximum number of slaves allowed to live on a plan- 
tation without a white man's control fifteen instead of ten. 
Governor Gist in his annual message in 1859 recommended 
the revisal of this law so as to require the owner to reside 
on his plantation during the whole year. The provisions 
of these last two acts did not and were not intended in any 
way to supersede the former act of 1740. The latter was 
to apply more specifically to the small plantations while 
the earlier law applied to the larger plantations. 

This legislation illustrates sectional differences in the 
state. The climatic conditions in the low^Iands encouraged 
the development of large plantations with but few whites 
on them. Further to the north, where conditions more 
favorable to the white man prevailed, the two races were 
more nearly equal in numbers and the smaller farms with 
few negroes were to be found. In the low country the 
independent non-slaveholding white farmer had no chance 
to get a footing on account of the struggle with disease and 
the competition with slave labor on the large plantation. 
In the up-country where the farms were smaller in size 
and greater in number and climatic conditions were more 
favorable to the white man there was larger opportunity 
to secure small tracts of land by the non-slaveholding 
white man. Some of these acquired a few slaves. Ac- 
cordingly there came to be a class of whites either non-slave 
holders or small slave owners in the hilly part of the state 
that formed a distinct class of the people of the community 
characteristic of the section. In contrast there was almost 
no such class to be found in the lowlands, where the only 
social conditions represented were the slaves and their 
overseers with occasionally an owner living on his own 
plantation. While the state was a unit in its general slave 
policy these laws, unnecessary in the northern part of the 
state, illustrate the different conditions of slavery and the 
consequent different methods of control or modification 
of the system where the situation was decidedly different. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 21 

Another illustration of differences in legal provisions 
arising out of differences of conditions in the two sections 
of the colony was that of an act of 1740 virtually suspending 
the operation of the patrol service in parts of the state 
where whites outnumbered the blacks. This exception 
applied apparently until 1819. It suffices to show the 
recognition of differences of circumstances and dif- 
ferences of needs in the two sections of the state. Owing 
to the spread of slavery later it applied to comparatively 
few districts, but the neglect of patrol duty in some parts 
of the state may have been due to the same feeling which 
led to this enactment. 

The question arises naturally, how well were these laws 
enforced? The first observation to be made is that it was 
decidedly to the interest of the owner both financially and 
from the point of maintaining order on his plantation to 
keep such a white person on it. It would be difficult to 
imagine that the best results could be had from a large 
plantation entrusted entirely to negroes. And yet Olm- 
sted* on one particular farm in South Carolina says that 
the owner had discussed the unsatisfactory character of 
most overseers and had said that he depended upon his 
negro drivers and kept a white overseer merely to carry 
out the mandates of the law. Perhaps this was an excep- 
tion to the general rule. It is more likely that some pe- 
culiar circumstances prevented compliance in cases where 
it was not observed than that the main spirit of its pro- 
visions was ignored. In 1852 bills of indictment charging 
two owners with not keeping white men on their planta- 
tions were handed to the grand jury of Sumter district 
but were returned "no bill." There is also the case of 
the State vs. Blythe, already cited, which appears (by its 
having been carried to a higher court on appeal) to have 
gone adversely to the defendant. 

The foregoing illustrates how the overseer came to have 
legal recognition. We now come to some discussion of the 
overseer as an economic and social factor connected with 
the institution of slavery. Most of the laws and regu- 

*Seaboard Slave States, p. 66. 



22 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

lations discussed up to this point were made in behalf 
of those who might have no interest in a large plantation 
and yet might suffer depredation from those disorderly 
slaves as well as in the master's interest, and for the general 
welfare and peaceable orderliness of society. We now have 
to look at the overseer as he is related to the master above 
and (lie slaves below. So far as he served legitimately 
the best interests of both he was a factor in society for its 
well-being. It seems that the overseer was a misfit, a 
makeshift, and there never grew up a class of men who 
found this middle position in society satisfactory to them- 
selves or their way of filling it satisfactory to the slave- 
owners. Indeed, there was nothing in the position to 
inspire, for even the salary was a bare living. Stern neces- 
sity often forbade even a tendency toward kindliness. And 
on the other side there was much in the calling to destroy 
the finer sensibilities and make one coarse and brutal. 
Indeed, one who was too sympathetic or lax was likely to 
be swamped by the barbarism of the blacks. Those to 
whom the work most appealed were, perhaps, the least 
fitted morally and temperamentally for the position. They 
usually came from among the non-slaveholding, non- 
propertied class of whites who at least sometimes may have 
been distrustful if not jealous of the .slaveholder. Over- 
seeing was a step to nothing. The overseer was not often 
received in the home of the master and certainly not as 
an equal, and he had few associates that were of an up- 
lifting character. In a sense he, like the slave he controlled, 
found no hope or ambition in the system. 

There was no law or interpretation of the courts to de- 
fine exactly the overseer's status. He was tacitly regarded 
as for the time taking the place of the master in his paternal 
relation of duty and responsibility to the slave. He 
controlled the movements of the slave, furnishing him the 
necessary pass when he was to leave the plantation. He 
had all the rights to chastise the slaves under his care 
that the master had except as limited by the master. He 
provided for the slaves, their food allowances and clothes 
and everything of that kind, as the master would do or 
as the master from time to time directed. The property 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 23 

interest of the master in his slave was regarded as sufficient 
to protect the slave from cruelty at the hands of the over- 
seer and was a better guarantee than were the laws against 
the cruelty of the master toward his own slave. Most 
masters had some rules more or less elaborate for this 
purpose. The following extract from one of these contracts 
between slaveowner and overseer preserved in the col- 
lections of the South Carolina Historical Society will 
illustrate this custom : 

"6th. John Ball will ever reserve to himself the 
right to discharge and turn off John Penny at any time 
of the year if he gets drunk, or improperly abuses his 
trust ... or maltreat the negroes under his care 
.... And if that should unfortunately be the case 
.... John Ball will pay for the time actually served. " 
But it is here probably that nothwithstanding the vigi- 
lance of the slaveowner, there crept in on the large planta- 
tion much of the cruelty for which the system of slavery 
has aroused so much criticism. Not that all overseers 
were evil-minded but that there often did arise provocation 
to undeserved punishment. And sometimes the revenge 
of the slaves was wreaked upon the overseer. The Inde- 
pendent Press, of Abbeville, on Aug 5, 1854, notes the mur- 
der of an overseer by three negroes in Abbeville district, 
and on June 17, 1854, the murder of an overseer in New- 
berry district by a slave. 

But we shall allow selections from periodicals of the 
time and other sources to speak for themselves. The 
following advertisement appended to another notice in 
the South Carolina Gazette, of November 7, 1741, suggests 
that there were some who took advantage of their position 
as overseer for evil: 

"A good overseer is wanted and shall have good en- 
couragement, in case he understands plantation affairs 
and can behave himself well and be honest." 
The following "Wanted" gives us a pretty clear idea 
of the qualifications that the owner desired the overseer 
to have:! 

^City Gazette and Daily Advertiser, Dec. 1, 1800. 



24 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

"The subscriber would give good encouragement 
to a man of the following description: a good cotton 
and rice planter, sober, honest, industrious, attentive 
and constantly on the plantation; who understands 
the management of negroes, to be worked with at- 
tention, steadiness and at the same time to be treated 
with humanity and care. No other person to be em- 
ployed and therefore any other application will be 
needless." 
A contributor to the Carolina Planter of February 19, 

1840, sets this down as some of the questions an overseer 

ought to have asked him: 

"Whether he is an attentive, careful and humane 

man? Will he treat negroes well? Keep up their 

spirit? Attend to the sick; favor the weakly? Take 

care of the women and children?" 

An ex-overseer gives to men of his former calling the 

following advice as to discipline, which gives us a good 

picture of control on the plantation :t 

"It is indispensable that you exercise judgment 
and consideration in the management of the negroes 
under your charge. Be firm and at the same time 
gentle in your control. Never display yourself before 
them in a passion; and even in inflicting the severest 
punishment, do so in a mild, cool manner, and it will 
produce a ten-fold effect. When you find it necessary 
to use the whip (and as desirable as it would be to 
dispense with it entirely it is necessary at times) apply 
it slowly and deliberately to the extent that you are 
determined in your own mind to be needful before 
you begin. The indiscriminate, constant and ex- 
cessive use of the whip is altogether unnecessary and 
inexcusable. When it can be done without a too 
great loss of time the stocks offer a means of punish- 
ment greatly to be preferred. Never threaten a negro, 
but if you have occasion to punish do it at once, or 
say nothing until ready to do so. A passionate and 
violent threat will often scare the best disposed negro 

tThe Ptirmer and Planter, June, 1857. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 25 

to the woods. Always keep your word with them 
in punishments as well as rewards. Never forgive 
that in one which you would punish in another, 
but treat all alike, showing no favoritism. Never 
be induced by a course of good behavior by the 
negroes to relax the strictness of your discipline; but 
when you have, by judicious management, brought 
them to that state keep them there by that means. 
The only way to keep a negro honest is not to trust 
him. This seems a harsh assertion but it is un- 
fortunately true." 
Another by "Decater," who from his manner of talk 
is also an ex-overseer, in the course of a lengthy article 
in the same periodical of January, 1855, drops this sig- 
nificant remark as to plantation control: 

"Let them know that you have a good feeling to- 
wards them and they are sure to respect you and obey 
you and do it willingly. I have found it difficult to do 
business successfully with them when I have to force 
everything out of them by the lash." 
The following very significant characterization of the 
situation was made by W. B. Seabrook in an address before 
the United Agricultural Society of South Carolina in 1827:* 
"In general the planter entrusts the sole manage- 
ment of his domestic concerns to some needy wan- 
derer who, without education, without morals or the 
incentive of honorable emulation, assumes the master- 
ship of a business at once complicated in its details and 
requiring the unwearied exercise of a sound discretion to 
conduct it safely through the ordeal of its own peculiar 
composition. Oftentimes twenty or thirty competent 
overseers exercise an unlimited control over a whole 
district [now called county] comprising thousands of 
laborers. In their hands is truly for a time, the 
whole fortune of their employers. Their ignorance 
cannot advance it; their indiscretion may forever 
blast it and peradventure shake the state to its 
center. . . . [Footnote made on revisal of address for 

*Pamphlet, Charleston Library. 



26 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

publication is as follows:] To the gloomy description 
here given of our overseers there are many and 
honorable exceptions; and I state with pride and 
pleasure, that as a class they are gradually improving 
in morals, education and general worth." 
A Carolina planter is quoted by Olmsted* to the effect 
that it was more common for an overseer to indulge the 
slaves in their idleness in order to win their favor and thus 
prevent their disclosing his faults than it was to whip 
them too severely. Similarly is Mr. Louis Manigaull's 
experience as quoted from his plantation record by Profes- 
sor Phillipsf as a special instance of an overseer who had 
broken "long established discipline" by undignified famili- 
arity with the slaves. 

On the other hand a contributor to The Carolina Planter 
of February 19, 1840, already referred to, finds other dif- 
ficulties. His idea is that the overseer often drives the 
slaves too hard in order to make a good showing; or again 
the scarcity of even "tolerable overseers" makes it im- 
possible to lay down strict rules for the welfare of the slaves. 
There seems to have been a common complaint as to the 
poor character of the men who were overseers by "undue 
prejudice indulged against this people" and the poor 
salaries.S "A City Rustic," in the Charleston Mercury 
of October 6, 1829, indicates that oversight of too many 
negroes for one leads to inefficiency, carelessness and down- 
right dishonesty of the overseer and that there resulted 
possil)ly a twenty-five per cent, leakage of the gross pro- 
ceeds. 

On the plantation there was another manager of quasi- 
official character who had to do with its management and 
particularly with the control of its negroes. This was the 
negro driver chosen from among the slaves themselves. 
He was a sort of intermediary between the laboring slave 

*Seabord Slave States, p. 67. 

fOrigin and Growth of the Black Belt, American Historical Review, 
XI, p. 806, footnote. 

§Jas. Barbour: Address before Agri. Society (reprinted), Charleston 
Mercury, Dec. 12, 1825. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 27 

and the owerscer or his master. He was trusted in varying 
degrees. Often he carried the keys and was looked upon 
as a necessary though undesirable adjunct of the planta- 
tion. His duties are so well described in the rules laid 
down by P. C. Weston for the management of his nee 
plantation that we shall quote -.t _ ^ 

"Drivers are under the overseer to maintain discip- 
line and order on the place. They are to be respon- 
sible for the quiet of the negro houses, for the proper 
performance of tasks, for bringing out the people early 
in the morning, and generally for the immediate in- 
spection of such things as the overseer generally super- 
intends." [It is also added that he sees that tasks 
are satisfactorily completed.]* 
The negro driver was looked upon as a mild innovation by 
those who did not have such an organization. And it is 
unquestioned that the opportunities and liberties which 
he had he sometimes abused. In a news note in the Abbe- 
ville Banner of February 18, 1848, is mentioned the murder 
of two negroes bv drivers. It is not to be imagined that 
the driver often abused his privileges, for it was by faithful 
services that he rose to his superior position. He might 
have been verv much disliked by the other slaves, and 
might have given good reason for such an unfavorable im- 
pression upon them. But would the slaveowners have 
long tolerated a system which was wholly bad? We shall 
here quote from an article by a "City Rustic" in the 
Charleston Mercury of October 2, 1829, for what it is worth 
as evidence, though the picture is certainly much over- 
drawn: 

"From these causes [i. e., poor supply of good over- 
seers] and from the consequent and unavoidable system 
of management necessarily and long adopted through- 
out the lower country, the small planters and their 
property h ave fallen into the hands of black drivers, 

tWritten for DeBow's Review, XXII, 42. 

*Professor Hart refers to another distinction, "Slavery and Abo- 
lition," p. 120, which the writer has not been able to verify though 
probably correct— "foreman" being really a slave overseer. 



28 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

a set of men which there does not exist on the face of 
the earth any on whom there can be placed less de- 
pendence. Practiced in every species of deception from 
their infancy; leagued together far and near by com- 
mon interest, and having all the more intelligent and 
finished thieves in the neighborhood under their arbi- 
trary control, it is not strange that every avenue to 
information should be closely shut between the some- 
times oppressed slave or the still rarer honest one, and 
the suffering and deluded master; and that a state 
productive of the complete demoralization of negroes, 
with all of its destructive consequences, should be 
the inevitable result." 



CHAPTER IV 
The Patrol System 

Almost from the very first the slave population pre- 
sented the problem of a police control that would suit 
the needs of the community and hold in check this irre- 
sponsible and often dangerous part of Southern society. 
For the more serious crimes methods of trial and punish- 
ment were provided. But for the general good-ordering 
and home-keeping of the slave some more exacting method 
must be employed than mere punishment by a court which 
the negro very little understood. If the slave had been 
unhampered in his general movements he would have been 
rendered capable of insurrection, the greatest possible 
danger to be feared from the African population. To this 
one must add the smaller fights, broils and disorders they 
would probably have had with each other if allowed to 
go from plantation to plantation without restraint. Finally 
the master would find the slave much less efficient if allowed 
the loss of sleep and energy incident to such carousing. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 29 

But while this aimless wandering about of the slave 
was unauthorized there were various errands both by day 
and by night desired by the master. Again it often oc- 
curred that the slave living on one plantation had as his 
accepted wife a negro woman living on another planta- 
tion. This marriage relationship was recognized both by 
the master and the negro man on the one side and the 
master and the negro woman on the other. Wednesday 
and Saturday nights* he was usually allowed to be away 
from his cabin on a visit to his wife. It was evident that 
there must be some regulation to permit and authorize 
this if there was to be a general prohibition of wandering. 
The rule was that no slave should be found off his master's 
plantation, particularly at night, without a written pass 
from his master, or in company with some white person, 
even a child ten years of age, who could vouch for the 
cause of his absence. The substance of the pass was an 
order to any person or patrolman to permit the slave 
"to pass and repass" from a given hour on a certain day 
to a given hour on some following day. The law of 1734t 
made it necessary that the pass show the destination of the 
slave and if he rides a horse it was to be so stated. It 
appears, however, that the pass usually gave permission 
merely to the slave to be absent from the plantation for a 
given length of tim.e. And even if such permit was not all 
that was understood to be legally required, it was generally 
accepted as sufficient by the patrol. Later the Constitu- 
tional Court decided^ that a pass did not have to indicate 
the destination of the slave. But the law was that a general 
pass intended to be good over a long period of time to per- 
mit the free coming and going of the slave would not be 
recognized by the patrol, nor were they authorized to 
accept uch a pass, as its purpose was to evade the spirit 
of the patrol police laws by the master. The frequency 
of complaints like the following suggests that the law 
was not observed. In a c ommunication appearing in 

*Testimony of ante-bellum people still living. 

tStatutes at Large, III, 396, sec. 2. 

§2 Nott & McCord, 113: Hogg vs. Keller, decided in 1819. 



30 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

The Daily Telegraph of Nov. 4, 1848, as to the policing of 
the negroes occurs this statement as to passes: 

"A 'general pass' (as it is called) to enable a slave 
t(^ go at large, when and where he pleases, is an 
outrage on the community, illegal in itself and will 
no longer be recognized. With a i)roperand specific 
pass a slave is always safe." 
Concerning which the editor remarks: 

"We hardly deem it necessary to sa}' one word on 
the subject of passes or permits; it must be obvious 
to every one, that where they neither limit the bearer 
to time or place, gross abuses must necessarily arise 
under them; and we presume all such passes are 
illegal, and therefore will be disregarded." 
The free movement of the slaves concerned not only the 
immediate owner but every other individual in the com- 
munity as well, for it afforded opportunity to the slave to 
instigate and co-operate in insurrectionary schemes; also 
it afforded opportunity for stealing, the colored person's 
inherent weakness. Often these passes were given by 
members of the master's family with, of course, the master's 
tacit consent, the latter's name appearing on the permit. 
Any person who forged a pass was to be severely punished, 
the maximum penalty being ,S 1,000 fine and twelve months 
imprisonment.* The sessions journal of Marlborough 
district in 1853 records the trial and acquittal of a white 
man for giving a ticket to the slave of another. He had 
been held for trial under a bond for 81,000. It is probable 
that there was a suspicion of his aiding in the escape of 
the slave as this was a common way of getting the slave 
out of the community. Another similar case occurred in 
Greenville 1847 but neither appears to have come to trial. 
The written pass was not required by day in the incor- 
porated towns. The slaves were allowed to go about. from 
place to place in town in the day time on errands of the 
master, most of the slaves being known to the local police 

♦Statutes at Large, VI, 552. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 31 

force. But at night after nine o'clock it was necessary 
for them to have a permit from the master. f 

The evolution of the patrol system is interesting. The 
need of keeping the slaves from roving was felt from the 
very first. Among the earliest of the colonial acts in 1686 is 
one* that gave any person the right to apprehend, properly 
chastise, and send home any slave who might be found off 
his master's plantation without a ticket. This plan was 
not altogether effective, and in 1690§ it was made the duty 
of all persons under penalty of forty shillings to arrest 
and chastise any slave out of his home plantation without 
a proper ticket. This plan of making it everybody's 
business to punish wandering slaves seems to have been 
sufficient at least for a time. 

In 1704 the governor and council passed a law that in 
time of public danger when the forces of the colony were 
likely to be drawn toward the coast for defense the general 
of all the forces should appoint from each company of 
militia one or more captains who, on the nomination of 
the general, shall each select ten men "to ride" the districts, 
taking up any strolling negroes that might be found off 
their master's plantation without a ticket. It would 
appear then that the interest in the common good made 
the patrol provisions of the act of 1690 as yet all that was 
needed ; or we are to guess that the negroes were more or 
less orderly, and that it was in time of "alarm" that they 
were disorderly or then that the danger from insurrection 
was greatest. The preamble of the act of 1704t stated 
its purposes to be "to prevent such insurrections and mis- 
chiefs as from the great number of slaves we have reason 
to suspect may happen when the greater part of the in- 
habitants are drawn together." This probably accounts 
for the old name sometimes applied to the patrolmen, 
"alarm men." 

tStatutes at Large, VIII, 538, sec. 11. 
*Statutes at Large, II, 22. 
§Statutes at Large, VII, 343. 
^Statutes at Large II, 254. 



32 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

This also explains how the police patrol came to be a 
part of the military. The arl of 1721* merged the patrol 
service definitely into the militia organization, making 
it a part of the military system, and devolving upon the 
military authority its arrangement and maintenance. 
This feature was continued until 1860. The reason for 
the arrangement is cited in the preamble of the act: 

"Whereas the several patrols in this province gener- 
ally consist of the choicest and best men, who screen 
themselves from doing such services in alarms as are 
reciuired and ought to be done by men of their ability 
which creates great murmurings and disturbances in 
the militia in this Province." 
Apparently efforts to evade patrol service were common. 
Indeed, it was a thankless task throughout the reign of 
the landlord slaveholder. 

In 1734t a regular patrol, by act of the Provincial 
Assembly, was organized, reciting in its preamble the reasons 
and needs therefor as follows: 

"Whereas former acts of the assembly passed in 

the province for regulating patrols have not answered 

the intention thereof and it being highly necessary to 

the well being of the province that the several patrols 

should be rendered as useful as possible in the keeping 

all slaves in due order." 

The provisions of this act form the basis of all later 

patrol legislation. Later acts modified and elaborated 

this primitive law, but the main principles of the patrol 

system as herein expressed for the next century and a quarter 

remained the same. The "beat company" — hf which is 

meant the group of five men who rode over the plantations 

and looked after the correction of disorders — was to be 

composed of a captain and four other men of the regular 

militia appointed from time to time. The patrolmen 

were to receive compensation, the captain C5() per annum 

and each of the others £25, and exemption from all other 

military service. For each district there were to be ap- 

*Statutes at Large, IX, 6v39, sec. 26. 
tStatutes at Large, IH, 395. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 33 

pointed three commissioners as supervisors of the patrol. 
The duties of this patrol were to visit each plantation 
in its beat at least once per month, chastising any slave 
found absenting himself from home without a pass, ad- 
ministering twenty lashes as a maximum; to search the 
negro dwellings, confiscating any firearms that might be 
in the home or any goods that they might have good reason 
to believe have been stolen; to enter any tippling house 
or any other house whatever, where any one of them might 
have seen a slave enter. Any fowls or provisions found in the 
hands of any negro who is away from home without a 
ticket might be appropriated to the patrolman's own use. 
The provincial acts usually expired after three years. 
Hence this law was re-enacted in 1737* with some changes. 
By the later act ministers were exempt from serving on 
the patrol; the patrolmen chose their own captain; visits 
on duty were to be once every week so as to reach every 
plantation at least once each month; confiscated goods 
were to be delivered to the commissioners of the patrol. 
It was also provided that in case any information iA a 
cabal or any kind of unlawful meeting of negroes should 
come to the ears of any ofificerof the patrol or militia he 
might summon, on penalty for failure, a number of persons 
necessary for dispersing the same. A more significant 
change, however, was one limiting the choice of patrolmen 
to fifty-acre freeholders or forty-shilling tax payers; to 
this was attached the following proviso: "provided always 
that the said commissioners shall not enlist any person as 
a voluntary patrolman."! We are left here to conjecture 
whether irresponsible persons had been attracted by the 
pay which must have been considerable for that time and 
hence had caused dissatisfaction on the part of the owners; 
or that others who had no intimate interest in the slave 
property of the community joined in voluntarily as on a 
holiday excursion or for the purpose of wreaking vengeance 
for an imaginary or real grievance. 

*Statutes at Large, III, 456. 

tSec 2. The act of 1740 also devolved the duty of patrol service 
only on slaveowners or overseers. 



34 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

The patrol act of I740t stated, in section 10 — 

"Many irregularities have been committed by 
former patrols arising chiefly from their drinking too 
much liquor before or during the time of their riding 
on duty." 
From this it would appear that even at best there was often 
considerable disorderly conduct among the patrolmen, 
and some of the "irregularities" may have been unauthor- 
ized whipping of slaves who were duly provided with 
passes, or undue disturbance of slaves who were peaceably 
at home. These were grievances that slaveowners of a 
later day resented. At this time there may have been 
considerable distrust of the non-slaveholder by the sla\-e- 
holder, or, this exclusion of the non-shaveholder may have 
been to relieve him of services in a cause for which he was 
not responsible. 

When the time for re-enacting the patrol law came again 
in 1740, just following the Stono insurrection, a general 
tightening up of the vslave regulations was indulged in as 
well as a general revision of the negro law. By the pro- 
visions of this law the captain of the militia company was 
to keep a list cf all persons liable for patrol duty, thofic not 
owning or being interested in a slave sixteen years old to 
be excepted, while female slaveowners were required to 
furnish a substitute. The ridings in each beat were not 
to include any circuit of more than fifteen miles. The 
captain was required at each muster to "prick off" a cer- 
tain number, not more than seven, located near together, 
to do patrol duty until the next muster. !f aiiy person 
should fail to respond for duty, the captain was authorized 
to employ a substitute at thirty shillings per night to be 
collected from the defaulter by action for debt. A sub- 
stitute of an age between sixteen and sixty years could 
be sent by a regular patrolman. This act was not to apply 
where the whites were in numbers superior to the blacks. 
Mention was here made of the switch or cowhide as the 

tNot the great Negro Law, but a separate act: Statutes at Large, 
III, 473. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 35 

instrument with which the castigation was to be admin- 
istered, f 

The patrol laws seem to have remained practically un- 
touched from 1740 to 1819. Perhaps the difficulty, if 
any, lay in their administration. For example the Charles- 
ton grand jury in 1766 said:* 

"We present as a general grievance through the 
province the want of patrol duty being duly done, 
and submit to the legislature whether a provincial 
or parochial tax to support the expense of a standing 
patrol to be on constant duty would not better answei 
the purpose of apprehending slaves." 
In 1772 the grand jury at the court held in Camden said:§ 
"We present as a Grievance the Patrol Act not 
being put in Force, whereby many Villanies and Rob- 
beries are committed which otherwise in a great meas- 
ure might be prevented." 
Governor Drayton in his annual message in 1800 suggested 
the patrol laws as a proper subject for revision. Governor 
Hamilton in his annual message in 1805, speaking of the 
patrol laws, said: 

"It is a fact that in the lower parts of tlie state, 
where regulations of this kind are particularly needed, 
those who are most interested in the preservation of 
peace and order, have, from a mistaken notion of 
things, thrown the whole of this burden on others less 
fortunately circumstanced, on whom alone the present 
penalty is coercive. Permit me, therefore, to recom- 
mend the imposition of a fine for default, in proportion 
of the property of the individual, to be rated by his 
tax return, as in the case for non-performance of militia 
duty." 
Again the next year he somewhat elaborated the same 

fThis was, it might here be mentioned, the officially recognized method 
of whipping the slave. See 1 Nott & McCord (Law), 279: Bell vs. 
Graham, decided in 1818; 2 Nott & McCord (Law), 113: Hogg vs. 
Keller, decided in 1819. 

*South Carolina Gazette, June 2, 1766. 
%SovAh Carolina Gazette, Dec. 10, 1772. 



36 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

idea, prefacing his remark witli a statement possibly ex- 
aggerated, it is true, since the legislature seems to have 
thought the patrol laws quite sufficient for the next thirteen 
years. He said: 

"The last of which [the patrol lawsj is so deficient 
as to coercive principle, that it has become a thing 
merely without effect." 
In 1816 Governor Williams was led by two attempted 
insurrections in the year just passed to seek a remedy in 
some amendment of the laws and a general tightening up 
of the regulations. He says: 

"These incidents [the Camden and Ashepoo attempts 
at insurrection] admonish us to a careful revisal of 
our j3atrol system. Perhaps the agents selected for 
its execution are proper; but the responsibility under 
which they act is believed to be inadequate to a just ad- 
ministration of it. If the duties to be performed by the 
agents are to be considered of a military nature 
wholly, as by some they have been, no evil could 
result from having superior officers to superintend 
their execution; if of a civil character, the aid of the 
court of law might be successfully resorted to, by 
adding an additional clause in the oath administered 
to the grand jurors." 
But for a general revision of the patrol laws the General 
Assembly waited until 1819. By the act of the legisla- 
ture of that year* all white males over eighteen were made 
liable for patrol duty, the non-slaveholders being excused 
from service after reaching the age of forty-five. Sub- 
stitutes from eighteen to sixty years old could be sent by 
persons liable for service. Governor Hamilton's sugges- 
tion, made thirteen years before, was embodied in the act 
by fixing the penalty for non-performance of patrol duty 
at a fine of $2.00 plus ten per cent of the delinquent's 
last tax levy. This was sufficient to reach the person 
whose wealth made a mere fine of $2.00 light. A patrol- 
man finding arms in a slave's house was allowed to appro- 



*Statutcs at Large, VIII, 538, sec. 2. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 37 

priate them to his own use by making oath before a magis- 
trate as to the manner of their seizure after the owner of 
the slave had had an opportunity to be heard. To pre- 
serve the orderHness of the patrol while on duty a fine of 
$5.00 was to be imposed by his military superior upon a 
captain of patrol for misbehavior and a fine of $2.00 upon 
a private patrolman for disorderliness or disobedience 
to the orders of the captain. The act also provided for 
imposing a fine of $5.00 upon a person for beating a negro 
unlawfully, that is one who was either quietly at home 
or was travelling with a ticket. These provisions as to 
the patrol were made not to apply within an incorporated 
town. To make the operations of the patrol as unhampered 
as possible it was enacted that any person prosecuting the 
patrols for any act of theirs in the performance of their 
duty, in case the prosecutor should lose his case, should 
forfeit a sum three times the costs. The captain of each 
beat company was to make a return at stated times to 
his superior officers of the militia as to .how the duties of 
the patrolmen entrusted to him had been performed on 
penalty of a fine of $20 for failure. In at least one case 
such a penalty was enforced by a court martial which was 
declared by the Court of Appeals in 1840 to be the proper 
kind of procedure.* 

Another apparently unfortunate provision permitted 
any person to act in the capacity of a patrolman in ad- 
ministering punishment if at any time he should find a 
slave out of his home place. This probably led to abuses 
and was finally abolished in 1839.§ Beating a slave who 
was found away from his master's premises but who had a 
ticket was to be construed legally as abusing a slave. f 

To summarize a few phases of the development of the 
patrol system will serve to unify what has been given 

*1 McMullen (Law), 69, Ex parte Biggers. 

§Another patrol law was enacted in 1839 (Statutes at Large, XI, 
64), the provisions of which are practically like that of 1819 except as 
is here indicated and in that it made a general provision for the control 
and regulation of the patrol in the cities by the municipal authorities. 

tl McMuUan (Law), 275: Caldwell vs. Langford, decided in 1841. 



38 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

somewhat in detail. To correct the strolling slave, al- 
lowed as a privilege to the white man at first, was soon after- 
wards made his duty. As a precaution against disturbances 
from the negroes in times of public danger when the num- 
ber of the white settlers was small a detachment of the 
militia was authorized "to ride" the districts. The same 
kind of policing in times of peace was found to be necessary 
as early as 1734. The practicability of the use of civilians 
for this purpose under a military organization known as 
the "beat company" was soon demonstrated. Limita- 
tions of the service to freeholders with compensation were 
removed in 1819 and all white males were made liable for 
duty without compensation. Apparently evasion of duty 
was common; disorderliness of the patrol was unfortunately 
frequent; at times interference with the patrol in the per- 
formance of their duties occurred. All of these weaknesses 
the act of 1819 sought to overcome and in large measure 
by this act the system was perfected. 

The proper enforcement of the patrol laws was at all 
times the difficult feature of the police control of the slaves. 
In 1820, the year following the enactment of the elaborate 
patrol law of 1819, Governor Geddes in his annual message 
says : 

"The patrol duty which is so intimately connected 
with the good order and police of the state, is still 
so greatly neglected in several of our parishes and 
districts, that serious inconveniences have been felt 
and cannot fail to continue, unless additional amend- 
ments are made to the law on this subject, as the per- 
formance of the duty it imposes cannot be enforced." 
No new law followed as the result of this recommendation, 
the Legislature probably realizing that there was but 
little that additional enactment could accomplish. Time 
alone could accustom men to the more formally imposed 
duties. In the spring of 1823 an indictment was brought 
in Union district for "Neglect of duty as Capt. of Patrols" 
and the defendant was convicted in the fall of the next 
year, the sentence being a fine of $20 and the costs of the 
prosecution; the record shows that the fine was paid. It 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 39 

is significant that this is the only incident of a conviction 
for non-performance of patrol duty that the available 
criminal records of the nine counties visited by the writer 
revealed. As late as 1853 the following appears in the 
presentment of the Williamsburg grand jury:"' 

"We present as a grievance the general neglect 
of the Provisions of the Patrole Law." 
And in pursuance of this the presiding judge makes the 
following order: 

"So much of said presentment as complains of the 

general neglect of the Patrol law be served on , 

Colonel of this regiment, and he be requested to extend 
the same to the captains of the various Beat Com- 
panies throughout the District." 
As a general statement the patrol laws were probably 
well enforced somewhat effectively in the rural districts. 
This does not mean necessarily that the ridings were al- 
ways regularly distributed but they were usually so. It 
appears that these ridings were more or less regular in 
the country districts.! Any disturbance or great pre- 
valence of thieving by the negroes was likely to be sufficient 
to bring pressure to bear upon the patrol to ride their 
beats regulariy. But when all was quiet and orderiy and 
there was apparently no danger of any kind it is not at 
all improbable that the patrol was lulled into inacrivity 
and many of the ridings were neglected. The fact that 
the master usually disliked for his slave to fall into the 
hands of the patrol because he was often "beaten up" is 
sufificient evidence that the non-slaveholder looked upon 
the patrol as the guarantee of his safety from evils often 
perpetrated by the black race. 

The case of the State vs. Cole, Dauner and Gaskins.f 
heard in 1822, gives a picture of the seamy side of the en- 
forcement of the system. A slaveowner was aroused in 
the dead of the night by an u nseemly noise, occasioned by 

*MS. records, Williamsburg County. 

§This is the experience of older men who recall the regularity oj 
their call to patrol duty. 

t2 McCord (Law), 117. 



40 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

the presence of the patrol, and going out he found his dog 
had been killed, a slave peaceably at home had been severely 
whippetl, and on his appearance he himself was abused 
in harsh language. The testimony showed that this 
occurred several times. Another similar case arose in 
1824.* A young man who claimed to be acting under the 
orders of his father, who was captain of the patrol, entered 
the house of a white man during the owner's absence and 
took away a gun while the house was in the possession of 
a slave. In both cases the highest court held that the 
acts were unlawful and that damages could be maintained. 
It appears, however, that in order to uphold the patrol 
system and to allow patrolmen to feel that they were to have 
a reasonably free hand, many unlawful things were indulged 
in and either went unpunished or were punished with only 
insignificant fines. This, it seems, was the greatest evil of 
the system for it gave unscrupulous persons unfair advant- 
ages and appears not to have encouraged the enforcement 
of the law by the better class. It was possibly in protest 
against what he regarded as unwarranted and unlawful 
interference of the patrol that a white person was found 
guilty in the sessions court of Marlborough district in 
1846 for "resisting patrol" and sentenced to two weeks 
imprisonment and a fine of $2.00.t 

The following quotation from a case occurring in New- 
berry district, to which reference will again be made, shows 
the very large discretionary latitude allowed to the patrol 
even to the extent of ignoring legal provisions to carry out 
the spirit of the law:§ 

"Let the patrol always act in the spirit that should 
guide the discreet, sedate, intelligent and humane 
owner of slaves and they will find the judicial arm of 
the government nerved to sustain them, indeed if it 
could be presumed that in such case they would ever 
need it. Thus guided they may often find occasion — 

*1 Harper (Law), 332: Porteous vs. Hazel and Jenkins. 

IMS records, Marlborough County. 

§5 Strobhart (Law), 21: State vs. Boozer et al. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 41 

no doubt they will — to overlook a harmless violation, 
a venial transgression of the strict letter." 
The court then made this general observation: 

"An attentive examination, however, of our slave 
law will show that there are few occasions when a slave 
is supposed to need the interposition of police discipline, 
whether wielded by the public or private arm, when his 
errand from home is known to his owner and per- 
mitted him in writing." 
The other side of unlawful interference had been clearly 
reproved in 1819 by the same court :t 

"It is highly proper to protect these officers [patrols] 
when acting within the limits of their authority; but 
nothing is so offensive to the law, as to violate the 
principles of justice and humanity under the semblance 
of its authority. ... It would be a violation of all 
law to place the slaves of the country at the mercy 
of every unprincipled and unfeeling man who may be 
clothed with this brief authority. It is the duty as well 
as the interest of every master to protect his slave 
from unnecessary punishment and to resist the abuse 
of legal authority." 
In Union district in 1818 and again in 1821 and in Spar- 
tanburg in 1832 bills of indictment for "assaulting patrole" 
and for "opposing patrole" were put in the hands of the 
grand jury by the solicitor, but in none of the three cases 
was a true bill returned. In the Spartanburg case the 
papers including sworn evidence are accessible. They show 
that a white man interfered with the patrol which was 
whipping certain negroes who were away from home 
without passes at two o'clock at night. Whether the 
negroes were at the white man's house or at the cabins 
of his own slaves does not appear; but the available facts 
suggest the probability that they were loafing in or about 
the white man's own home and that the patrol suspected 
some evil like gaming to be their purpose. The fact that the 

t2 Nott and McCord ^Law), 113: Hogg vs Keller. 



42 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

white man interfered points to his ha\ing liad some in- 
terest in their presence.* 

As before mentioned, the act of 1819 had modified the 
general provisions on patrol regulations by making it 
unlawful to chastise slaves in any incorporated town who 
were found on the streets without a ticket from daylight 
until 9 p. m., provided their home was with their master 
whose residence was in the city. This law of 1819 was a 
rural police act. The effort to apply the same police 
regulations even to the smaller towns that were appli- 
cable to the plantation was to hamper the legitimate in- 
dustrial operations in the town. It was found necessary 
to turn over the patrol duties to the regular police force. 
But these changes were gradual. Probably owing to the 
scare of the attempted insurrection near Camden in 1816, 
that town by a special act of 1818^' had had transferred to 
its town council the entire control and management of 
the patrol and the enforcing of the patrol regulations. This 
act provided that "the members of the town council 
. . . . shall be subject to the same penalties for 
neglect of patrol duty that the captains of beat companies 
are now subject to by law." Probably some difficulty 
in enforcing the patrol law arose for in 1830 another act§ 
was passed allowing the town council the right to enforce 
duty by a fine of S20 and to provide for the commutation 
of service by a payment in lieu of services. 

Columbia was given, by an act of 1823t, the right to regu- 
late through its intendant and wardens the operation and 
manner of enforcing the patrol system. The supply bill 
ordinance of the city in 1852 provided for a commutation 
tax of $3.00 instead of serving as a patrol." A similar 
commutation tax of $4.00 per annum in lieu of patrol 
service was provided by an ordinance for Camden in 1841.t 

*Thcse cases are to be found in the MS. records of the counties 
named above respectively. 
^'Statutes at Large, VI, 98. 
§Statutes at Large, VI, 415. 
^Statutes at Large, VI, 207. 
jThe Daily South Carolinian, Dec. 22, 1852. 
tMSS. Ordinance of Camden. 



Control of Slaves hi South Carolina 43 

It seems that village patrol service was well enforced — 
Charleston excepted — by the marshal of the town. It had 
the effect probably of driving from the town to points 
outside the corporate limits the evil doers among the slaves 
and free negroes as will appear from the following quo- 
tations occurring in a communication to The Daily Tele- 
graph (Columbia), of Nov. 4, 1848, from "A Citizen of the 
Sandhills." 

"The latter [i. e., people living just outside the town] 
have long been subjected to aggressions and annoy- 
ances of various kinds from these negroes, who from 
notoriously bad character, are forced by dread of the 
marshal to betake them.selves beyond the limits 
of the town in pursuit of their evil practices which 
evil has suddenly been much increased by the influx 
of laborers on the railroads going forward. 

"Unusual vigilance is now required and hence- 
forward patrol law will be rigidly enforced in the 
difTerent beats. The residents of the sand hills are 
determined to abate the nuisance in the most summary 
and effectual manner practicable. 

"It is time to put a stop to this marauding when 
burglary has commenced, after the smoke-houses and 
poultry yards are exhausted — and when a nest of 
gamblers can be fallen upon almost every night in 
the week — every Sunday certainly. 

"To flee from the patrol when challenged — to 
resist, effect or attempt an escape, when arrested, 
has become so common with the scoundrels of late, 
that a few startling examples must be made." 
Not all the regulations, particularly the patrol regula- 
tions dealing with slaves, applied to free negroes, who were 
allowed freedom of movement from place to place without 
legal restraint. Where their numbers were considerable 
they, however, presented much the same problem of con- 
trol that the slaves did. Hence curfew laws applicable 
to free negroes as well as slaves were resorted to. As 
early as 1804 Charleston passed such an ordinance. f 

^Charleston Courier, Dec. 3, 1804. 



44 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

The town of Pendleton, in the foothills, which, according 
to the census of 1830, had only 329 inhabitants — 172 
whites and 157 slaves — had a curfew ordinance in force 
in 1835*, providing that the patrol should "apprehend and 
correct all slaves and free persons of color" who might be 
found on the streets after 9 p. m. "whether such slave or 
free person of color have a pass or not." Probably other 
if not all towns and \'illages had such regulations for clear- 
ing the streets at night. 

The proper policing of the colored population seems to 
have been a greater problem in Charleston than elsewhere, 
due in large part no doubt to the lax rein held over them 
and to the presence there of a larger number of free negroes 
than elsewhere. The regulations had to be more flexible, 
for owners often hired out their slaves whose coming and 
going when in the legitimate performance of their duties 
were less circumscribed than they were on the plantations. 
At every angle of the negro's activity there was more op- 
portunity of taking advantage of his liberties for evil. 
And yet many of the evils were often probably not worse 
than aimless loitering or congregating on the streets on 
public occasions. 

These grievances as to the control of the negro popula- 
tion go back to the early times. It seems that the port 
of Charleston very soon became a sort of rendezvous for 
these undesirables. The seventh section of the Negro 
law of 1712 says that, 

"Whereas great numbers of slaves which do not 
dwell in Charleston on Sundays and holidays resort 
hither to drink, fight, curse and swear and profane 
the Sabbath and using and carrying of clubs and 
other mischievous weapons, resorting in great com- 
panies together, which may give them an opportunity 
for executing any wicked designs and purposes to 
the damage and prejudice of the inhabitants of this 
province." 
The section after thus reciting the evils makes it the duty 

* Pendleton Messenger, Dec. 18, 1835. The census figures given 
above were not published but were secured direct from Census Bureau. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 45 

of the constable of Charleston on Sundays, Christmas, 
Whitsuntide and Eiister to press into service as many men 
as might be necessary to go through all the streets and to 
search the houses and publicly to whip all slaves found 
visiting and then turn them over to the marshal to be 
dealt with as runaways. The patrol law of 1734, before 
referred to, provided in a special section* for two patrols 
of eight men each to make alternate ridings, on Saturday 
nights, Sundays, Sunday nights and holidays. 

These laws did not have all of the effect desired. The 
Charleston grand jury in 1744 saidrf 

"We present as a grievance the great insolence of 
negroes in Charles Town by gaming in the streets 
and caballing in great numbers through most parts 
of the Town, especially on the Sabbath day." 

Another presentment of similar import was made by the 

grand jury in 1766:§ 

"We present that the negro law is not put into 

strict execution, and that the slaves of Charleston 

are not under a good regulation, and that they at 

all times in the night go about the streets rioting, 

that they do often gather in great numbers on tiie 

Sabbath day and make riots where it is not in the 

power of the small number of watchmen to suppress 

them, which may without any precaution prove the 

utmost ill consequences to this province." 

That the enforcement of the patrol was either necessarily 

or carelessly lax appears in the following presentment of 

the grand jury in the next year:^ 

"We present as a grievance the bad practice of free 
negroes and mulattoes being suffered to pass to and 
fro without any certificate or badge of their being free, 
by which means many runaway slaves are suffered to 
pass as free." 

*Section 6. 

jSouth Carolina Gazette, Nov. 5, 1744. 
\South Carolina Gazette, June 2, 1766. 
XSouth Carolina Gazette, Nov. 9, 1767. 



46 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

The need of soiiKlhing like a guard-house with the 
correction idea for these colored offenders against police 
regulations became evident and took form in the work- 
house scheme.* It appears at first to have been intended 
for other servants as well as slaves but soon came to be 
used solely for negroes. It nmst have been regarded as a 
thankless task, since the first section of the ordinance 
providing for its management by fl^'e commissioners 
attaches a penalty of a fine of $40 for refusal by any person 
to serve in that capacity when he had been chosen by the 
city council. Still there seems to have been but little 
reason for such an idea, if it did exist, for the workhouse 
appears to have been an instance of an intelligent method 
of dealing with the troublesome problem of police control. 
It may be disagreeable to administer the affairs of a prison 
and inflict the punishment provided for, but so long as we 
have criminals, they must be dealt with in some way by 
somebody in the interest of society. 

This is the way an Englishman travelling in America 
in 1827 regarded the purpose of the workhouse: 

"It seems, indeed an essential part of the system of 
slavery that the lash should be used as a means of en- 
forcing discipline. But as the disagreeable nature of 
this discipline prevents the master from administer- 
ing it at home, the offending slave is sent to the work- 
house with a note and piece of money, on delivering 
which he receives so many stripes and is sent back 
again."! 
To this workhouse were sent slaves and free negroes ar- 
rested by the police or patrol after beating of tattoo, or 
arrested runaways. "Lodged in the workhouse at the 
pleasure of the owner" (who became liable for the costs 
of the slave's arrest and detention) was the usual form. 
Any slaveowner had the privilege of placing an unruly 
or disobedient slave in the workhouse for correction for 

*Chadcston Ordinances, 1807, p. 474, bound volume. It is mentioned 
in the Negro law of 1740, Statutes at Large, VII, 411, sec. 37. It was 
established probably near the beginning of the eighteenth century. 

tHall, C. P.: Travels in North America, p. 204. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 47 

any length of time and by paying for his dieting the slave 
might be allowed to remain for some time without work. 
For each correction, whipping or putting on of irons a 
fee of twenty-five cents was charged. The master of the 
workhouse was limited by ordinance to administer not 
more than two whippings of twenty lashes each in any one 
week and at least three days must intervene, even though 
the owner might desire more severe and more frequent 
castigation. This made it unnecessary for the owner to 
whip his own slave if he found it distasteful, and perhaps 
the threat of a trip to the workhouse had a salutary effect 
on the slave's conduct. It is not at all likely that it made 
the corporal punishment of the slave more cruel, for the 
master of the workhouse was limited in this respect 
and chastisement was at the owner's direction and avoided 
the cruelty incident to sudden heat of passion. It also 
provided a convenient place of commitment. All the in- 
mates of the workhouse were employed in gainful occu- 
pations — stone cutting was one — during their stay unless 
unable or their master requested remission of labor. 

In 1804 the Charleston city council passed a curfew 
law,* which provided that any free negro being found with- 
out his own or his employer's premises after beating of 
tattoo should be lodged in the guard-house until a fine 
ranging from $1 to $5 be paid by himself or in the case of 
a slave by his owner. If the money should not be forth- 
coming he was to work it out at the workhouse. Refusal 
to stand when arrested or to be obstinate at trial was to 
be punished with a fine of $40. f But this regulation was 
not unattended with difficulty. In a communication 
from "Investigator," in The Southern Patriot of December 
22, 1823, complaint was made that often when a slave is ar- 
rested another negro, presumably free, was allowed by the 
warden of the guard-house to pay the fine and secure the 
slave's release. It was not claimed that this occurred 
frequently and per haps was rare. "Investigator" raised 

*It is not at all improbable that the city had a curfew ordinance 
before this, but this will conveniently illustrate. 
^Charleston Courier, Dec. 3, 1804. 



48 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

the inquiry to kiunv whether this praetice had the approval 
of the city council or whether it was a usurpation by the 
wardens of the guard-house. For he arlded that it might 
l>e that the master hy this means did not learn of the ab- 
sence of his slave from his cjuarters and would wish to have 
him j)unished if he did know it. 

There were several other minor ordinances which in 
all probability were not well enforced. An ordinance 
of 1813"^ prohibited negroes from swearing, smoking or 
walking with a cane on the streets— the infirm or blind 
were allowed use of a cane of course — or to making any 
joyful demonstration. No negro dances were to be held 
without the consent of the city wardens, nor were negroes 
to asseml)le at any military parade. This last was not 
well enforced as appears from the following from"Enquircr," 
on "Our Police," in the Charleston Mercury of December 
10, 1835: 

"At all our military parades our streets are crowded 
and infested with troops of negroes, who neglect 
their master's work to attend these parades. Why 
is the law not enforced?" 
Another regulation in 1848t excluded from the parks all 
slaves and free negroes unless in company with a white 
person, or unless they had passes from their masters, or 
in case of free negroes, from their employers, and these 
passes must be for a specific purpose. This was appro- 
priate if they congregated on the batteries and wharves. 
"A Friend of Good Order" complained, in the Charleston 
Courier of December 11, 1821, that the street on South 
Bay was taken up with riotous negroes. Another ordi- 
nance of 1850§ prohibited, with a peneilty for its violation 
by a fine of $5 to $20, any owner of a saloon to allow a slave 
or free negro to loiter or sit down in his place of business. 
The report of Wm. Porcher Miles, referred to again, points 
out that whiskey is the greatest evil to combat in policing 
the negroes of the city. A su mming up of the cases against 

*Printcd Ordinances of the City of Charleston. 

^Southern Patriot, Nov. 30, 1848. 

§Mentioncd in 4 Strobhart (Law), 321: City Council vs. Seeba. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 49 

negroes in the police court as they were written up for the 
Evening News in 1856 shows that drunkenness was a part 
of the charge in almost all of the cases. 

The following excellent summary of the negro cases by 
Mayor Robert Y. Hayne, for the year ending September 
1, 1837, as given in his annual report, affords us a clear 
statement of the dealings of his court with the colored 
population for a year favorable for a fair comparison of 
results:* 

"The number of slaves [i. e., brought before the 
mayor's court] was 768, of whom 138 w^ere discharged, 
309 fined, 264 committed to the work-house, or sub- 
jected for trial. 

"The number of free persons of color was 78, of 
whom 27 were discharged, 36 fined or subjected to 
corporal punishment, 5 committed to the work- 
house, and 10 committed for trial 

"Of the 573 slaves fined or committed to the work- 
house nearly the whole were arrested for being out 
at night without tickets or being found in the dram 
shops or other unlawful places. The tines imposed 
did not in general exceed $1, and where corporal 
punishment was inflicted it was always moderate. 
It is worthy to remark that of the 460 cases reported 
by the marshals for prosecution, but 22 were actually 
prosecuted, the penalties having been voluntarily 
paid in 303 cases, and in 118 cases having been re- 
mitted, thus preventing by a previous examination, 
421 suits." 
From the report two years later of the proceedings of the 
city authorities is taken the following extract relating to 
the colored population : 

"The following is a statement of the number of 
cases examined, and of the manner in which they 
were disposed of, in which slaves and free persons of 
color were arrested for being "out after the beating 
of the tattoo without tickets, fighting and rioting 

*Paniphlet, Proceedings City Authorities of Charleston, Sept. 1, 
1836, to Sept. 1, 1837, page 8, S. C. Hist. Society Collection. 



50 Control oj Slaves in South Carolina 

in the streets, following military companies, walking 
on the battery contrary to law, bathing horses at 
forbidden places, theft or other violation of the city 
and state laws:" 

Number cases examined 1,424 

Discharged after examination 270 

Punished in the work-house 330 

Prosecuted or delivered to warrant 33 

Fined or committed to the work-house until fine 

be paid 26 

Penalties paid by owners or guardian 398 

Runaways disposed of according to law 115 

Delivered to the orders of the owners 252 

The often riotous and troublesome population could 
in a measure be controlled in the city but it caused trouble 
just outside, as was the case on the outskirts of Columbia 
referred to above. The locality of most disturbance was 
on what was commonly known as "Charleston Neck," 
which is the long narrow strip of land extending some 
twelve miles back of the city between the Ashley and 
Cooper rivers. Driven from the city by a general tighten- 
ing up of the municipal patrol the free negroes and in- 
sufficiently restrained slaves went just beyond the city 
limits to continue their disorder. The Charleston grand 
jury referred to this evil as early as 1744:* 

"We present as a grievance Negroes being allowed 

to go from Town into the Country under pretense of 

picking myrtle berries, etc., and who at the same 

time carry Rum and other Goods, to trade with Negroes 

in the Country, by which they are debauched and 

encouraged to steal and robb their masters of their 

corn, poultry and other provisions." 

There was a further difficulty where there were very 

many free negroes, that slaves when caught by the patrol 

would endeavor to pass themselves as free persons. This 

was true of Charleston where according to the census of 

1810 it was shown that there were 1,783 free negroes in 

*South Carolina Gazette, Nov. 5, 1744. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 51 

the district. Hence a special act of 1823t by the General 
Assembly for the regulation of the patrol on "Charleston 
Neck" provided that any free negro might be whipped by 
the patrol when away from his home or his employer's 
premises unless he produced his "free papers, "§ or convince 
the patrol of his freedom by other satisfactory proof. 
The act even goes further and declares that free negroes 
out of their own or their employer's premises after 9 p. m.* 
without a ticket from their guardians would be liable to 
the same punishment meted out to a slave. 

Owing to the difficulties incident to the proximity of the 
city this patrol of "the Neck" was often, if not for the 
greater part of the time, inefficient. The report on the 
proceedings of the city authorities in 1836 said that efforts 
to control the negroes in the city are futile, since they easily 
cross the boundary into "the Neck" where "the police 
is not and cannot be effective." A union of the two was 
thought desirable. A communication to the Charleston 
Courier of September 23, 1845, voiced the same feeling, 
pointing out the need of a guard-house. With an editorial 
deliverance from the Charleston Courier of April 25, 1834, 
must be dismissed the situation on "the Neck" peculiarly 
aggravating to the people of Charleston: 

"On Charleston Neck it [i. e., the disordcrliness] 
has become a serious evil, more particularly as it 
refers to the drunken gangs of drunken and riotous 
negroes pitching cents, and playing marbles, cursing 
and blaspheming in the vicinity of the ruinous and 
fatal sons of vice, the retail liquor shops, with which 
our city and neighborhood is so much infested. From 
these receptacles of iniquity they come forth, sur- 
charged with the fumes of whiskey and segars in their 
mouths, staggering on their way, brawling and rioting 
totalh^ regardless of decency and decorum. 
What has become of the Charleston Neck patrol? 

fStatutcs at Large, VIII, 545. 

§Certified copies of the record of his freedom required to be fiir- 
ished him by the clerk of court. 
*10 p. m. from Mar. 20 to Sept. 20. 



52 Control of Slaves in Soiilh Carolina 

There was a time when that patrol as a body, and in 
the respective districts, contributed much to suppress 
such malpractice and by its energy afforded protection, 
not merely to property but to the feelings of those 
who mostly have a claim upon their chivalry and honor, 
nor do we cease to look to the interposition of the 
Charleston Neck patrol as an auxiliary for enforcing 
the laws and of guarding the portions of the community 
against the continuance and further encroachments 
of habits and practices conducive to the awful and 
evitable consequences of immorality, vice and 
irreligion." 



CHAPTER V 
Punishment of Slaves 

A great deal of the hostility to the institution of slavery 
came of the alleged cruelty to the slave; and much of this 
charge, it must be admitted, w^as well founded. However, 
the cruelty can, in some measure at least, be justified by 
the fact that nothing but the fear of a certain and severe 
physical punishment for misdoings could hold most 
slaves in check. The act of 1712 has often been pointed 
out as evidence of cruelty in its graduated scale of mutil- 
ations. However, these ideas were probably in large 
part a survival of English penal law. Furthermore this 
act was superseded in 1740, and although branding was 
not specifically forbidden until 1833*, there is little that 
the writer has found in the way of mention in newspapers 
or elsewhere as evidence of anything other than whipping 
as a legal penalty for lesser offenses except a few instances 
of ear cropping. But there are abundant instances of 
private cruelty and unwarranted mistreatment if one wishes 
to dwell upon that side of slavery. 

♦Statutes at Large, VI, 489. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 53 

The plantation system involved many instances of 
harsh treatment at the hands of cruel masters and over- 
seers. And it was on the large plantation that slavery 
could be seen at its worst, where the direct oversight of 
the master could not easily protect his interests in the 
humane treatment of the slaves. Neglect or failure prop- 
erly to finish tasks, running away, theft, show of impu- 
dence and insolence, or violence to the other slaves with 
perhaps other small offenses was sure to call down upon 
an offender the justice of a wise manager or the wrath of 
a cruel overseer. In any instance it was not likely nor was 
it intended that any outside interference should be inter- 
posed so long as it could not be satisfactorily shown that 
the punishment led to a shortening of the slave's life or 
permanent injury, or as statute law would say, "extending 
to life or limb." The master or the manager under his 
authority was to be the sole judge of the grievousness of 
the offense and the number and severity of the strokes 
in whipping even if the punishment should disable the 
victim for a short time. The court records of cruelty to 
slaves discussed in a later chapter will suffice to illustrate 
the slightness of the probability that the master would 
be called to account. On the smaller farms, where the 
owners had the direct oversight, very little cruelty occurred. 
Many people could relate the lesser punishment meted out 
to their slaves as is recited in the humdrum diary of James 
Kershaw:* 

"1812, August 5, gave Jude a whipping for impu- 
dence." 
Offenses such as thieving or general disturbances were 
always punished with whipping, which was usually severe. 
Judge O'Neall had the following to say as to this method 
of punishment :t 

"The whippings inflicted by the sentence of courts 
trying slaves and free negroes are most enormous — 
utterly disproportioned to offenses — and should be 
prevented by all means in our power. In all cases 

*Reprinted in Kirkland and Kennedy's Historic Camden, p. 412. 
fNegro Law of South Carolina, p. 35. 



54 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

where whipping is to be resorted to, I would limit 
the punishment by law, in all cases affecting both 
black and white, to forty, save one, and direct it to 
be inflicted in portions, and at considerable intervals 
of time. Thus mingling whipping and imprisonment 
together, and holding the rod suspended in the con- 
templation of the party, until the delay itself would 
be worse punishment than the infliction." 
Some instances of punishment may be mentioned. The 
following sentence was imposed by a court for negroes in 
Charleston upon a negro — presumably free — convicted of 
attempt to set fire to a private kitchen:* 

"Twenty lashes at Centre-Market, on 10th inst, — 
twenty lashes on 3rd of March — twenty on 24th of 
March, and twenty on 14th of April. Or if he so 
choose he may leave the state after the first whipping." 
Cuffy, a slave, received the following sentence for man- 
slaughter of another slave at the hands of a similar tribunal :§ 
"Six weeks solitary confinement; three weeks upon 
the treadmill, and twenty lashes at three different 
times in the public market, at intervals of thret 
weeks." 
A news note in the Rising Sun of April 27, 1859, gives this 
as the sentence imposed upon a negro for chicken stealing: 
"Nathan, a slave was tried and convicted for stealing 
chickens from a Mr. , and sentenced to ninety- 
five lashes. Peter, another slave, a witness in the 
case, being detected in several falsehoods and being 
believed to have an interest in said chickens, was 
sentenced to thirty lashes." 
The Darlington grand jury in its presentementf at the fall 
term of court in 1852 called attention to their discovery 
in the dungeon of the jail of a slave named Scipio, who had 
been sentenced by a court for negroes to two years im- 
prisonment and five hundred lashes; — undoubtedly, if 

*Charleston Courier, Feb. 8, 1826. 
^Charleston Courier, May 2, 1839. 
fMS. records for Darlington County. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 55 

there is not a mistake in transcribing the sentence, it was 
with the purpose of a distribution of the lashes — the request 
of the jury is that this be lessened since it would probably 
endanger the slave's life. Three negroes in Laurens 
district were convicted of assaulting a white man and 
sentenced to receive each five hundred lashes, evidently 
with a view to distributing them.* 

Transportation was another means of handling trouble- 
some slaves. It has already been mentioned that being 
sold to a trader was held up as an evil from which the slave 
might well wish to escape. In 1833 a casef arose involving 
the validity of a contract connected with a bill of sale to 
carry out of the state a certain slave. The court's opinion 
both as to the legality of such a contract and what of cus- 
tom it involved is well worth quoting: 

"Contracts of this sort are not unusual. The 
owners of slaves frequently send them off from amongst 
their kindred and associates as a punishment, and it 
is frequently resorted to as the means of separating 
a vicious negro amongst others exposed to be influenced 
and corrupted by his example. It is, therefore, com- 
mon to require of the purchaser of such a negro, that 
he shall carry him out of the state. In such a con- 
tract there is nothing immoral, impolitic or illegal, 
and when, as in this case, it is founded on a valuable 
consideration there can be no doubt that it is binding." 
W. C. Bryant preserves to us one of the songs§ he heard 
sung by the negroes at a "corn shucking" while on a visit 
to South Carolina, probably at Barnwell. It is quoted to 
illustrate the fear they had of being sold into distant 
regions : 

*Laurensville Herald, Feb. 19, 1858. 

tl Hill (law), 150: Nowell vs. O'Hara. 

^DeBow's Review, IX, 326. 



56 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

"Johnny, come down de hollow. 
Oh hollow. 



De nigger-trader got he. 

Oh hollow. 
De speculator bought me. 

Oh hollow. 
I'm sold for silver dollars. 

Oh hollow. 
Boys, go catch de pony. 

Oh hollow. 
Bring him round de corner. 

Oh hollow. 
I'm goin' 'way to Georgia. 

Oh hollow. 
Boys, good-bye forever. 

Oh hollow." 



The number of offenses, capital when committed by 
negroes, was greater than those in the case of white men. 
And the execution of the sentence in the case of negroes 
was probably more certain than in that of the whites. 
Any homicide of a white by a negro would probably be 
adjudged murder. It would be of little avail to sum up 
the capital offenses of the slave, for on the one side they 
appear far too few as specified in the statutes and on the 
other they would by no means cover all the offenses for 
which the extreme penalty could be imposed. For some 
offenses, particularly when they are repetitions, the fixing 
of the penalty is left to the court trying the case. One 
such will serve to illustrate. By the law of 1740* any 
slave presuming to strike a white person unless done at 
the command of his master or in defense of him, shall 
for the second or third offense suffer such punishment as 
the "court shall in their discretion think fitt, not extending 
to life or limb." For the third offense the penalty is 
death, or in case the slave "grievously wound or bruise 
any white person, though it shall be only the first offense, 
shall suffer death." 

*Statutes at Large, VII, 405, sec. 24. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 57 

The act of 1751 1 authorized the court for the trial of 
slaves to commute the capital punishment required by 
law provided the circumstances under which the crime 
was committed should seem to warrant it. Also an act 
of 1834* gave the court discretion in any case not capital 
to substitute imprisonment for any other penalty not 

provided by law. 

It seems that the slaveholding interest of South 
Carolina practically controlled all slave legislation during 
the period of its existence. A good illustration of this is 
the law which provided for the payment from the public 
treasury for every slave executed. This was in some form 
continued until the sixties. By the act of 1740 the maxi- 
mum payment allowed was £200 but this was lowered to £40 
in 1751. From 1800 to 1825 there appear among the acts 
of the Assembly the annual appropriations for executed 
slaves, the amount being uniformly $122.43. A compila- 
tion of these acts will also show how many legal hanging 
of negroes occurred. The largest number thus provided 
for was seven in 1812. For the other years the usual num- 
ber was two or three, but in some years there were none. 
This argues well for the freedom of slaves from capital 
crime unless we may suppose that others were dealt with 
in a summary manner, or that no reimbursement was ap- 
plied for. 

For the next eighteen years no further account of pay- 
ments for executed slaves appears, and it would seem that 
no such cases occurred, doubt even having arisen as to 
whether allowances for such compensation were legally 
in force, when in 1843 an act declared that such a law was 
in force and provided for the paying of the value of slaves 
executed during the four years just passed. § This same 
legislature passed another act fixing the maximum penalty 
for an owner or overseer who concealed or conveyed away 
a slave charged with a capital offense at a fine of $1,000 
and twelve months' i mprisonment.^ 

tStatutes at Large, VII, 420, sec. 18. 
*Statutes at Large, VI, 516. 
IStatutes at Large, XI, 285. 
^Statutes at Large, XI, 278. 



58 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

CHAPTER VI 
Courts for the Trial of Negroes 

There has been occasion for frequent references to courts 
for the trial of slaves and free negroes. We may now 
describe their organization and investigate their operation. 
The purpose of the early settlers in dealing with crimes 
committed by negroes seems to have been to make justice 
sure and swift. For example, in Charleston in 1733, on 
a Saturday afternoon, "a negro fellow" stole a horse from 
a boy who was riding him. The negro was caught on 
Sunday, tried by the tribunal for negroes on Monday and 
about noon on Tuesday paid the penalty on the gallows.* 
None of the safeguards cherished by Englishmen, such as 
trial by jury, were thrown around the negro. It was 
a court given large discretion and unhampered by techni- 
calities. 

The courts as organized by the colonial act of 16901 
remained the same with more or less unimportant modi- 
fications throughout the slavery regime. A fuller provision 
for them was made in the great negro law of 1740. Any 
justice of the peace§ being informed of the commission 
of a crime by a slave or free negro was immediately to 
despatch his constable to effect the arrest of the criminal, 
and forthwith to summon another justice nearest at hand 
together with not less than three nor more than five free- 
holders within three days,t fof the trial of the case. A 
quorum, which must consist of a justice and two freeholders, 
or of two justices and one freeholder, was sufficient to con- 
vict. || The sentence was then to be fixed by the quorum 

*South Carolina Gazette, Jan. 27, 1733. 

tStatutes at Large, VII, 345. 

§Later called magistrate. Hence referred to as the "Magistrates 
and freeholders court." 

jBy act of 1754, Statutes at Large, VII, 427, six days. 

IJThis prevented conviction either by the votes of the justices alone 
or by the freeholders alone. The "justice of the quorum" used in this 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 59 

according to law, and it will here be remembered that 
large discretion was allowed as to the penalties. There 
was, until very much later, no appeal from these courts. 

We need not go outside the state to hear this system of 
trial condemned. A few quotations of official or repre- 
sentative character will suffice. The first is from Judge 
O'Neall, who had abundant opportunity to be acquainted 
with the workings of the court:* 

"The tribunal for the trial of slaves and free negroes 
is the worst system which could be devised. The 
consequence is, that the passions and prejudices 
of the neighborhood arising from a recent offense, 
enter into the trial, and often lead to the condem- 
nation of the innocent." 
Another clearer statement is from the annual message of 
Governor Robert Y. Hayne to the legislature in 1833: 

"In relation to the slaves my own experience and 
observation have convinced me that reform is im- 
periously called for. While rigid discipline should be 
enforced, the law ought at the same time to afford 
complete protection against injustice. The courts 
before which slaves must now be tried, for crimes of 
every description, are liable to be so arranged as to 
deprive them of an impartial trial. 

"It is true that the moral sense of the community 
afford them, in general, protection from injustice, 
yet it is sufficient for us to know that the justices 
and freeholders are not unfrequently selected by the 
prosecutor, to perceive at once the liability of such 
a system to gross abuse. Capital offenses committed 
by slaves, involving the nicest questions of the law, 
are often tried by courts composed of persons ignorant 
of the law and left withou t the aid of counsel." 

connection was the justice concurring with the other two freeholders. 
Of "justice of the quorum" simply, and not in this connection, D. D. 
Wallace (Constitutional History of South Carolina, 1725-1775, p. 22) 
says a justice of the quorum exercised notarial rather than judicial 
duties. 

*Negro Law of South Carolina, sec. 32, p. 35. 



60 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

An ediloriiil in the Charleston Mercury of Dec. 1, 1841, 
says that there ought to be 

"an alteration of the laws for the trial of slaves for 
capital offences. . . . This is required not only 
for humanity's sake . . . but for the interests 
of the slaveholder. Not only the life of the slave 
but the property of the master are now in jeopardy 
trom the ignorance and malice of unworthy magis- 
trates, or perhaps a packed court of freeholders. 
In some neighborhoods the slave of a rich or popular 
man may be guilty with impunity, while the slave 
of a poor unpopular man is made to pay his life as 
the penalty of his master's unpopularity. Our policy 
as a slaveholding state requires that this species 
of property should be protected by a better system." 
Governor Richardson cited reasons in his annual message 
to the legislature of 1841 for believing that the usual 
actions of these courts were overhasty: 

"The instances of awakened regret and contrition 
on the part of so many of these judicial tribunals, 
involving the interposition of executive clemency, 
to mollify or arrest their own hasty and often illegal 
convictions, are of frequent and ordinary occurrence." 
And Governor Adams in 1855 said of the court: 

"Their decisions are rarely in conformity with justice 
or humanity. I have felt constrained in a majority 
of the cases brought to my notice either to modify the 
sentence or to set it aside altogether." 
From these and other sources that could be cited the 
evils in the court as at first organized of which complaint 
was made may be classified as follows: First, for the trial 
of capital offenses the court as constituted did not even 
approximate jury trial, or fair selection. The first magis- 
trate to whose attention the crime was called, no matter 
what his prejudices might be, constituted a sort of judge and 
foreman. This justice acting without limitation selected 
whom he would of resident freeholders to sit with him; 
and the verdict to convict did not have to be unanimous. 
Second, there was no opportunity to challenge (that is at 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 61 

first), either the presiding magistrate or the freeholders 
sitting with him. Nor was there any provision for the 
consideration of any ground of appeal. From the act of 
1740 it would seem that guilt was to be presumed in the slave 
charged with crime unless the court found otherwise. 
Third, the master's or guardian's protection and defense 
of his ward was ill considered. It seems that it often oc- 
curred that slaves or free negroes were convicted without 
their master's or guardian's being present or being allowed 
to be heard in person or through counsel. The Sumter 
grand jury in 1829 recommended the enactment of a law 
requiring,* 

"the magistrate before whom a slave is charged with 
the commission of a crime or misdemeanor to give 
notice to the owner of the place where and the time 
when said slave is to be tried." 
This would seem to indicate the possibility of such convic- 
tion without the presence of the owner. Fourth, this 
gives the hint of another evil, that these trials were often 
held in secluded places, anywhere in the country where 
they were not exposed to the wholesome influence of 
publicity. Fifth, those who tried the case, including the 
magistrate, might be ignorant of the law, and often were 
likely to be swayed by prejudice or the present clamor 
of opinion. 

This seems to be a quite sufficient indictment against 
the system. In the Charleston Courier of September 25, 
1849, is a communication from a "Country Magistrate" 
which gives a clear, unconscious picture of a slave court. 
It is too long to quote in full, a summary will have to 
suffice: This magistrate, ten days after taking office, 
was informed of a case of poisoning, two negro women 
being charged with the crime. The new official had never 
seen a trial in a negro court and no lawyer was near. He 
proceeded to summon freeholders and another magis- 
trate. One of the negroes was found to be plainly innocent. 
The other appeared to a majority of the court on circum- 
stantial evidence to be guilty and was convicted by a vote 

*MS. records Sumter County. 



62 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

of three to two of the court, but none thouglit the woman 
ought to be hanged, owing to the presence of the element 
of doubt. "But," it is added, "it was the unanimous 
opinion of the whole party — magistrates, freeholders, con- 
stables and visitors — that it could not be done legally;" 
that is that the extreme penalty could be inflicted or none. 
The negro was acquitted with the understanding that she 
would be sent out of the state, which the master consented 
to do. The quotation is sufificient to show the irregularity 
of the trial which was made a sort of connnunity affair 
where a poll of those present was taken. 

Another incident illustrative of the practical working 
and weakness of the system can be had from the record of 
a rehearing before Judge Wardlaw, a circuit court judge, 
at chambers in Abbeville, on error. It was the case of 
a slave condemned by a magistrate and freeholders' court 
to be hanged for burning a stable. The only effect of the 
rehearing, it may be remarked, was to set aside the verdict 
for the time being and grant a new trial by another magis- 
trate and freeholder's court which would observe the proper 
procedure. On a rehearing before a superior court (pro- 
visions amending the old regulations which will be dis- 
cussed in a few paragraphs further down) the record was 
the only evidence submitted. Judge Wardlaw set aside 
the verdict on ten enumerated grounds, the most important 
of which were that the records did not show: that the 
owner had been duly notified; that the freeholders were 
residents of the district or that they had been properly 
summoned; that the witnesses had been sworn; that anv- 
body had been heard in the negro's defence; that any defi- 
nite time for the execution had been fixed; nor, lastly, 
"that there was a distinct statement in writing of the 
offense for which the prisoner was put on trial, to which 
the testimony was annexed." Of this last objection 
the court says further: "An accurate statement of the 
offense is required, as well by the principles of justice as 
by the positive words of the law. Time . . . should 
be stated . . . place also; and the essential ingredients 
of the offense which contains them, or by separate enumer- 
ations." Even supposing these objections to have been 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 63 

merely technical errors, it shows a reckless disregard of 
justice to the accused man of color. But it gives us some 
idea of the practical workings of one of these courts.* 

Now the remedies proposed by governors, grand juries, 
editors and legal writers may be summed up as follows: 
First, a limited form of jury trial with a fair number of 
challenges by the owner or guardian without cause, and a 
greater number for cause. Second, that appeal be allowed 
to some superior court, the most feasible the circuit court, 
on an abstract of the case. Third, that the trial be con- 
ducted publicly at the court-house seat in the district.! 
Fourth, that some time between the verdicts and execu- 
tion for capital offenses be allowed to elapse to afford an 
opportunity for a review of the case by the Chief Executive 
with a view to the possible need for executive clemency. 

An unlimited jury trial could hardly be expected though 
so loudly and from some places apparently so urgently 
called for. The Charleston Mercury of November 30, 
1855, in an editorial comment on Governor Adams' re- 
commendations, points out the possibility of abuse in the 
owner's interest by requiring a unanimous verdict for 
conviction and hence justice might fail. 

While not all, indeed only a few and these very much 
limited, suggestions became laws, it would be surprising 
if the recommendations did not have effect in the direction 
of some modification and liberalizing of the trial system. 
Section 5 of an act concerning negroes passed in 1831§, gave 
the master, guardian or agent the right of challenge for 
cause of any persons selected to try a slave or free negro 

*FulI report of rehearing and objections narrated in the Abbeville 
Banner, April 21, 1847. 

fEditorial in the Charleston Mercury, Dec. 1, 1841, suggested that if 
owing to the size of some of the districts going to the court-house seat 
be deemed a hardship, certain points more or less public might be desig- 
nated by law. News note in the Southern Patriot, Dec. 11, 1845, says 
that a bill giving the owner the privilege of changing the venue of the 
trial of one of his slaves accused of crime from his own community 
to the court-house passed the lower house of the General Assembly in 
that year but was thrown out in the Senate on a technicality, 

§Statutes at Large, VII, 467. 



64 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

for a capital offense, the presiding magistrate being the 
judge of the \alidit>' of the cause. And the next section 
prohil)ited the trial of a sla\e for any offense in the absence 
of the master or the master's agent, or until reasonable 
notice to the master of the place and time of the trial and 
the offense charged had been given. 

In 1832 a special act for the trial of negroes in the city 
of Charleston required a unanimous verdict for the con- 
viction of a free negro.* 

An act of 1833t gave the right to the accused of appeal to 
the circuit court from a negro court for any slave or free 
negro convicted of a capital offense. § The circuit judge 
was to review the case from a report sent up by the negro 
court. It seems, however, that the most that the su- 
perior court could do was to grant a new trial, from which 
all of those who sat in the first trial were to be excluded from 
participating. In 1817 another legal process had been re- 
sorted to in Union district! where the judge had upon peti- 
tion entered a rule upon a court of magistrates and free- 
holders to show cause why they should not be restrained 
from carrying into effect a verdict of their court upon a 
slave. Later the complaint was withdrawn and the rule 
dismissed. Under the pro\isions of this act Judge Bay 
in circuit set aside a verdict of a court of magistrates and 
freeholders in 1835 in a case where a free negro had been 
sentenced to death for the murder of a slave. The grounds 
upon which he acted were that the oath had not been 
properly administered and that magistrates not resident 
in the district in which the crime was committed were 
allowed to sit in the case.|| In 1858 three negroes in 
Laurens district, who had been convicted for assaulting 
a white man and had been sentenced to be hanged, were 

♦Statutes at Large, VI, 457. 

tStatutes at Large, VI, 489. 

§Such a measure had been considered in 1820; Charleston Courier, 
Dec. 20, 1820. 

tMS. records Union County. 

\\Charlesto7i Courier, Apr. 1, 1835. Another is the case in Abbeville 
referred to above in this chapter. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 65 

granted a new trial by Judge O'Neall on the ground that 
the act was not "maHcious."* 

Another salutary measure was that, if requested, the 
negro court had to allow sufficient time between the finding 
of a verdict in a capital case and its execution to give the 
governor ample time to review it for executive clemency. 

The laws of the slave and negro courts did not provide 
for the keeping of any record of the trial — only another 
evidence of the irregularity of their procedure. . . . 
and even when the record was submitted for review by 
a superior court the facts were sometimes not all set out, 
as shown by the Abbeville appeal case. Hence it has not 
been the good fortune of the writer to find any official 
papers bearing on the manner in which they were conduct- 
ed, f It is probable that this court was not often resorted 
• to except for the punishment of capital offenses though 
it had jurisdiction in smaller cases as well. There were 
likely other methods more summary with which smaller 
offenses like petty theft could be dealt. A good whipping 
by an outsider when the offense was clear and the evidence 
unquestioned would probably have been acquiesced in 
by the master. 

*Laurensville Herald, Feb. 19, 1858. 

fin Union district, after 1840, the papers in cases of the trial of slaves 
appear to have been filed with the clerk of court and are indexed with 
the papers in other criminal cases. One hundred and twenty-six cases 
are recorded against slaves of every variety of criminal charge, includ- 
ing also "striking white man," "slandering white person." They cannot 
all have been cases on appeal for they do not appear on the Sessions 
Journal at all. 



66 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

CHAPTER VI I 
Relations Between Whites and Blacks 

To the slave was extended the protection of the law in so 
far as enactment and interpretation were concerned. The 
colonial act of 1690t provided a penalty of three months' 
imprisonment for a master who should unduly injure his 
slave unless the injury was inflicted in an effort to prevent 
his running away from due chastisement. By the law of 
1712 a master was to be fined £30 for the murder of his 
own slave if for "bloodymindedness." If the slave was 
owned by another, the murderer was to be liable to owner 
for the value of the slave in addition to a fine of £25. An 
act passed in 1722 provided that: "whereas there is reason 
to suspect that slaves do run away from a want of suf- 
ficient allowance of provisions"* the justices of the peace 
should be empowered to fine the owner £50 for failure to 
provide sufficient clothing and food for his slaves; a sum 
larger, it will be observed, than for his murder. If he 
"do run away" he would become a menace to the neigh- 
bors. By the act of 1740§ the heaviest penalty that could 
be inflicted for the murder of a slave by a white person was 
£700, or if the defendant should be unable to pay the fine, 
seven years' imprisonment at hard labor could be sub- 
stituted. But if the deed was committed in sudden heat 
of passion the penalty was to be a fine of £10. For lesser 
cruelty to a slave the fine was £10 and for not providing 
sufficient clothing it was £3. About 1807 a slave owner in 
Charleston had one of his slaves to chop off the head of 
another slave. Judge Withers, in passing sentence on 
the white man, expresses regret that the penalty for the 
murder of a slave under such revolting circumstances was 
so light. I 

tStatutes at Large, VII, 346, sec. 12. 

♦Statutes at Large, VII, 378. 

§Statutes at Large, VII, 411, sec. 37. 

tThe incident was brought to light by Mrs. Stowe's Key to Uncle 
Tom's Cabin and all the facts were critically verified later by Judge 
O'Neall in his Bench and Bar of South Carolina, vol. 1, p. 103. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 67 

An agitation for making more severe the penalty for the 
murder of a slave was begun sometime about the opening 
of the new century. If we may believe a communication 
to The Times (Charleston) of June 2, 1806, negro homicides 
were occurring frequently. This article makes the point 
that the penalty for killing a negro was less than for steal- 
ing him. In the fall of the same year a member of the 
Legislature gave notice of his intention to introduce a 
bill with this purpose in view,* but nothing was done. 
However, a committee was appointed under joint reso- 
lution of both houses of the General Assembly! to recom- 
mend changes in the criminal code after deliberation during 
the recess. This committee among other things said: 

"But your committee beg leave further to report 
that in the opinion of the said joint committee it 
will be proper to alter and increase the present pun- 
ishments of the crime of manslaughter and murdering 
a slave." 
A proposed bill accompanied the report, but no such law 
was passed. In 1808, as was then customary, parts of the 
presentments of grand juries of the various districts re- 
commending certain legislation were laid before the law- 
making body by their respective delegations. From the 
Kershaw grand jury in 1808§ came the complaint that the 
existing laws to prevent the murder of slaves were inade- 
quate. The following description of conditions by the 
Charleston grand jury in 1816^ carries with it the seal of 
official authority: 

"The grand jury further present as a serious evil 
the many instances of Negro Homicide, which have 
been committed within the city for many years. The 
parties exercising unlimited control as masters and 
mistresses, in the indulgence of the malignant and 
cruel passions in the barbarous treatment of slaves, 

*Charleston Courier, Dec. 3, 1806. 
\The Times, Dec. 8, 1807. 

^Charleston Courier, Dec. 7, 1808, Legislative News. 
XCity Gazette, Jan. 22, 1816, quoted by Jervey: Hayne and His 
Times, p. 68. 



68 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

using them worse than beasts of burden, and thereby 

bringing on the community, the state and the city 

the contumely and opprobrium of the civiHzed world." 

At the fall term of court in Darlington in 1816 the trial 

jury in the case of a prisoner charged with negro stealing 

returned this unusual verdict: 

"Guilty. On the determination of the case of the 

said we, the jury recommend him to mercy, 

believing the crime of stealing a negro is not more 
deserving of death than the murdering which only 
subjects to fine and imprisonment." f 
Notwithstanding the jury's recommendation the prisoner 
was sentenced to be executed. The Southern Patriot of 
Dec. 1, 1819, also contains a letter from a correspondent 
urging the death penalty for murder of a slave by a white 
person. 

These are sufficient to show that there was a fairly general 
feeling that the murder of a slave by anybody ought to 
be made a capital offense. But like all reforms it had 
to abide its time. In 1820 the feeling was sufficiently 
prevalent for Governor Geddes to call attention in his 
annual message to the inadequacy of the penalty as it 
then was, saying that it has held us up to the world as 
being inhuman because "a slave being deprived of his 
natural right of self-defense against a white man the killing 
of him by the latter receives from the circumstances ad- 
ditional aggravation." But the message was answered 
by no enactment. According to McCrady* action was 
finally precipitated by a well known case of the murder 
of a runaway slave by his master. The lawmaking body 
at last heeded the demands of progress and passed in 1821 
the necessary act§ making the murder of a slave punish- 
able with death. If the deed should be committed in sud- 
den heat and passion the penalty was a fine of $500 and 
six months' imprisonment. 

fSesfions Record Darlington District, Oct. 1816. 
*Slavery in South Carolina 1670-1770, Amer. Assn. Hist. Rpts.. 
1895, p. 658. 

§Statutes at Large, VI, 158. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 69 

The effect of this enactment was interpreted by the 
Court of Appeals in 1834 as follows:* 

"This change I think made a most important 
alteration in the law of his [the slave's] personal 
protection. It in a criminal point of view elevated 
slaves from chattels personal to human beings in the 
peace of society." 
A still broader interpretation is given in 18521 by the 
same court: 

"The battery of a slave is equally with the battery 

of his owner a breach of the peace; and the license 

of the plaintiff to beat his slave can no more be pleaded 

in justification than the license of the plaintiff to 

beat himself." 

But in this connection it miust be remembered that the 

master had an almost unlimited right of correcting his 

slave and that if the slave offered resistance he would 

thereby commit a crime. It was thus stated by the 

highest tribunal in 1831 :§ 

"To a master, by the common law of this state, a 

slave owes passive obedience; to enforce it the master 

has the right of correction, and if while exercising 

this right, the slave should kill his master, he would 

be guilty at common law; . . . and his aiders and 

abettors being present would be guilty of the same 

offense." 

The question naturally arises, how well was the law 

against slave murder enforced? For this information we 

may secure some light from the criminal court records in 

the offices of the clerks of court in the various counties. 

Many of these have been destroyed or are in a bad state 

of preservation. But sufficient more or less fragmentary 

records are available to form some idea of the prevalence 

of the crime and the checking influence of the courts. 

*2 Hill (Law), 453: State vs. Maner. See also Cheatwood case, 
ibid, p. 459. 

t4 Richardson (Law), 75: Watson vs. Hamilton. 
§2 Bailey (Law), 75: State vs. Crank. 



70 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

Before we come to these we can refer to a few more or 
less noteworthy examples of the convictions of white 
persons for the murder of slaves, f One was the execution 
of a white man in Marlborough district in 1852 for the 
murder of a female slave.* Another conviction was in 
Chester district, where a white man was convicted in the 
Sessions Court in 1834. It was appealed to the higher 
court but the verdict of the lower court was reaffirmed. § 
In the Pendleton Messenger of December 9, 1838, appears 
a statement by Governor P. M. Butler, setting forth the 
reasons why he refused clemency to a youth in Richland 
district who had wantonly killed a slave, although a 

tit is altogether probable that there were other cases of conviction 
of whites for murder in the first degree where the victim was a negro. 
The records of some of the counties, now destroyed, might have shown 
such cases and those at some of the county seats which the writer did 
not visit might disclose others. It is, however, likely that the number 
was not great; these mentioned are so referred to because of their 
attracting considerable attention at the time. 

*MS. records of Marlborough County, Oct., 1852, Criminal Papers, 
485. The indictment covers four pages of large-sized paper closely 
written. Twenty-three witnesses were summoned by the prosecution 
and eleven by the defense. The slave hired from another was in the 
control of the defendant. The indictment alleges torture for a period 
of three months. He, with others of the same family name, had been 
more than once indicted for cruelty to slaves and general disturbance 
of the peace of the community. Though the records are silent, it is 
the recollection of elderly persons of the community still living that he 
was duly executed for the crime. 

§2 Hill (Law), 459: State vs. Cheatwood; MS. records Chester 
County; no sentence, however, is recorded. Featherstonaugh: Ex- 
cursion Through the Slave States, vol. 2, p. 345. The incidents of the 
case are related by Featherstonaugh, an Englishman who was traveling 
in this country at the time and had the uncomfortable misfortune of 
riding with the convicted man and the deputy in the Fame stage from 
Columbia to Chester. According to this account the prisoner had been 
in the habit of gambling with negroes, which was then regarded as 
about the meanest thing a white man could do. The negro, who was 
the victim of the murderous attack of the white man on a particular 
night, proved to be the more shrewd player and won all the stakes. 
This enraged the white man and the result above stated followed. Prob- 
ably because of the prejudice against gambling with negroes, no len- 
iency was shown the prisoner, which might under other circumstances 
have prevented the extreme penalty of the law. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 71 

largely signed petition had been before him praying for 
the mercy of the Executive. The account does not state 
whether the sentence was finally carried to execution or 
not, but it probably was. Still another in Colleton dis- 
trict was the case of the "Broxton Bridge Horror,"* where 
two white men, one the son of the owner of the sla\^e and 
the other a white assistant, who together, on capturing 
the slave after his having run away, put him to death by 
torture extending over a day and a night. The Colleton 
case and the Marlborough cases were revolting in the 
extreme. In the former case the militia were on duty 
at the execution by the Governor's orders to prevent any 
attempt at rescue. 

The criminal records of Sumter district are practically 
complete from 1827 to 1854. During this period of neariy 
thirty years there were eleven bills charging murder of 
slaves by white persons placed in the hands of the grand 
jury by the solicitor. In the case of three the grand jury 
reported "no bill." As to one of these three they reported 
after the "no bill" this explanation: "bad treatment, not 
intenrional murder." Another bill at the same term of 
court was returned against the same person charging the 
murder of a slave— whether it was for the same offense or 
on another separate charge does not appear. The prisoner 
was arraigned, tried and acquitted. In the other cases, 
six were tried and found "not guilty." Of the remaining 
two, one pleaded guilty, but no sentence is recorded; 
while the last received a verdict "true bill on second count," 
no sentence being entered. 

The first slave case recorded in an old fragmentary record 
under date of 1812 in the clerk of court's office at Dariing- 
ton is an "indictment for killing a negro," the defendant 
on the following year being found "not guilty." A case 
returned "true bill" appears in 1825 but no further trace 
of its final disposal could be found. From 1840 to 1861 
there were three indictments for slave murder recorded. 
They were disposed of as follows: for the first a verdict, 

*7 Richardson (Law), 327: State vs. Motley; State vs. Blackledge. 
O'Neall: Annals of Newberry, p. 319— Appendix. 



72 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

"guilty, self defense," is the return, meaning probably 
justifiable homicide; the second was found not guilty, 
the indictment during the progress of the trial having been 
changed from murder to "murder in sudden heat and pas- 
sion;" opposite the third is recorded "not arrested." This 
latter case the grand jury took up and presented the sheriff 
for non-performance of duty. Later the records show that 
a true bill had been found against the person in the last 
case, but he probably escaped justice in the end, as no further 
record in reference to him appears. 

The Williamsburg county records are fragmentary down 
to 1840, and are more or less confused and crudely tran- 
scribed, and the dockets often fail to show whether the 
cases were acted upon even by the grand jury. However, 
in such records as are preserved from 1817 to 1860 ten 
bills for the murder of slaves by whites are entered. Of 
these "true bills" are returned in only four cases with no 
convictions. In the other six cases there appears "struck 
off" or no further mention. 

In Newberry district*, from 1840 to 1860, there were 
five charges for slave murder entered. One defendant 
pleaded guilty in 1855 but no record as to the sentence is 
available. The other four came to trial and the defendants 
were acquitted. 

In the records of Kershaw county, dating back as far as 
1789, though those for a period of twenty-three years are 
missing and those preserved are otherwise unsatisfactory, 
we find six persons charged with murder of negroes; the 
defendant in one case was sentenced to be hanged for anoth- 
er offense; in another case a "no bill" was returned by the 
grand jury; in two instances a "true bill' is twice returned 
for each case but no trial appears to have taken place; 
in two cases the defendants were put upon their trial and 
acquitted. In these six cases is included one in 1806 
under the charge of "burning a negroe;" it was on this 
case that the grand jury refused to bring an indictment. 

For Marlborough district the sessions records contain 
the one already mentioned (p. 70); only three cases of 

*Only an "Index" of the criminal cases before 1857 is preserved. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 73 

slave murder by whites besides in two of which the investi- 
gation led to "no bill;" in another, in 1819-before the 
murder of a slave was made a capital offense— the trial 
jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter and the 
following sentence is recorded: "360 old currency— to 
remain in custody until fine and both are paid." 

The records of Union district from 1804 to 1860 have 
five cases of slave murder recorded. In the first, in 1804, 
the defendant was convicted and fined $100 and the costs 
of the suit. Two of the others are found not guilty; m 
one no indictment was returned by the grand jury; in 
another case no mention of its final disposal is made. 

From the available records of Spartanburg district from 
1806 to 1860 there are four persons charged with slave 
murder. One was found guilty in 1815, the sentence 
being "that he remain in gpal until he pays the fine of 
seven hundred pounds of old currency." In 1816 two 
white men were charged with the murder of the same negro, 
the verdict ot the jury being, "We find the defendants 
guilty of killing by undue correction," and the sentence 
was "that they pay the sum of three hundred and fifty 
pounds old currency each and to stand committed until 
the fine is paid." In another, in 1818, the defendant pleaded 
guilty but no sentence is recorded. The last, in 1849, 
was nolle prossed. 

The indexed criminal records of Laurens county extend- 
ing back to 1801 contain nine bills charging murder of 
slaves by whites. The defendants in two of the cases 
were found "guilty on the second count," the sentence 
in one instance being $500 and six months' imprisonment, 
but in the other no sentence was found recorded. In a 
third case the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter 
and sentenced to a fine of $500 and imprisonment for three 
weeks. In a fourth case the only record left is that op- 
posite it in the docket, "guilty and sentenced." Of the 
remaining five cases one was struck from the docket, while 
the other four were brought to trial and the defendants 
acquitted. 

Unless it escaped the search of the writer or appeared 
on an unpreserved record, no case of slave murder against 



74 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

whites was brought in Greemille from 1806 to 1860. 
By the census of 1810 there were five whites for every 
negro in this district, and in 1850 there were three whites 
for every negro. 

There is nothing in any of these records to show what 
relation the aggressor sustained to the slave, whether master, 
owner's overseer, or purely an outsider. It is a reasonable 
conjecture, however, that in case the majority of offenses 
had been committed by outsiders or even by an overseer, 
more convictions would have been secured from a more 
vigorous prosecution of the charge. In the Southern 
Chronicle of Aug. 26, 1846, was the notice of a reward of 
$100 offered by the Governor for the apprehension of one 
who had killed a slave belonging to another person. Speak- 
ing generally, if the deed was committed by a person who 
had property it is more than likely that a civil action would 
have been brought by the owner, and unless it were a 
flagrant outrage probably no criminal action at all would 
be taken. In any case there was every advantage of the 
benefit of a doubt given a white man who murdered a 
slave — the disparity of racial condition was so great. It 
would then be difftcult to secure the conviction of a white 
man under any circumstances. The property interest of 
the master could not have failed to be a source of protection 
to his slave. The property interest in some measure at 
least protected the slave from violence at the hands of 
the master himself and caused the latter to secure over- 
seers who he thought would not likely offend along this 
line. But increased difficulty would be encountered in 
bringing to justice the slaveowner who even unjustly took 
the life of his slave. The expense and trouble of the prose- 
cution of a person who had more or less of wealth and social 
prestige as a defense was great. The evidence would 
likely be scant — only negroes, if anybody, would probably 
be witnesses and they could not testify against a white 
person. And then the master could very easily enter the 
plea that it occurred as the result of resistance on the part 
of the slave to lawful correction. Here the matter in all 
probability most often ended. Where death resulted from 
cruelty,unless it were sudden and violent and its inhumanity 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 



75 



was apparent, it is extremely doubtful whether the case 
ever came to the attention of the courts at all. However, 
the Laurensville Herald of February 5, 1858, has a strong 
editorial condemning cruelty to slaves and uses as an 
illustration the case of a white man who had caused the 
death of his slaves by ill treatment. It appears that a 
committee of citizens in the community had waited upon 
this particular slaveowner and demanded that he leave 
the community at once, which he did. After relating this 
incident (of a kind rarely committed to print in ante-bellum 
days) the editor gives full approval of the irregular proceed- 
ing of this master's neighbors. 

What has just been said as to the probabilities of a white 
person taking the life of a slave is applicable to the question 
of the humane treatment of the slave by the whites. The 
criminal dockets of the nine counties before mentioned 
yield more data on this point than on the former. The 
law of 1740t provided no higher penalty than a fine of 
£100 for any cruelty to a slave, even mutilation and loss 
of member not endangering life. By an act of 1841* the 
unlawful whipping of a slave was punishable by a maximum 
penalty of a fine of $500 or six months' imprisonment. 
But this act made it quite clear that exception was to be 
made in the case of the owner or overseer, or one to whom 
the slave had offered insult or insolence. To make this 
"lawful" correction entirely permissible an act was passed 
in 1858§ in which it was clearly set forth that the master 
did have the right to administer such punishment as was 
necessary in the proper discipline and control of his slaves. 
The sessions dockets of the courts have a number of 
charges entered, such as "unlawfully whipping a slave,'' 
"cruelty to slave," "assault and battery on a slave," 
"unlawfully beating a slave." On the available sessions 
docket of Sumter county from 1827 to 1854 there are 
entered thirteen such cases. Two defendants pleaded 
guilty; five were convicted b ut no recorded sentence appears 

tStatutes at Large, VII, 411, sec. 37. 
*Statutes at Large XI, 169. 
IStatutes at Large, XII, 629. 



76 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

except for one where the fine is $1. Six of these cases are 
either dropped or without further record. 

In Darlington district for twenty years, from 1840 to 1861, 
there were twenty-three such cases. Two came to trial, 
one in 1847 and one in 1848, and verdicts of guilty render- 
ed with fines of $25 and $62.50 respectively imposed. Three 
more cases were tried and guilt established but no record 
occurs of any penalties imposed. The remaining eighteen 
are returned "no bill ;" either the defendants were acquitted, 
or the record fails to show any further action in the case. 

In Williamsburg district from 1840 to 1860 twelve such 
cases appear on the docket, of which the record shows no 
conviction and only six reach the stage of "true bill" and 
these are struck from the record later. 

In Newberry district from 1842 to 1860 there were only 
seven such indictments with convictions recorded in only 
two of them but with no penalties attached. 

There is no record of any indictment being brought 
against a white person in Kershaw district for cruelty to 
slaves. 

It is different in Marlborough district, where negroes 
were apparently well protected. Nine such cases appear 
on the docket, three being brought at intervals against 
the same person. In only two cases did the grand jury 
fail to indict and in each of the remaining seven convic- 
tions were secured. The fines were $20 and $25 except 
in the case of one defendant who pleaded guilty and the 
fine was fixed at $1. Imprisonment was the sentence in 
three cases — in one for a term of one week, in another for 
ten days and in another three months. The grand jury 
in 1847 presented the same person referred to above as 
having later been indicted three times for cruelty as follows : 
"For beating, tearing with dogs and otherwise 
cruelly treating two negroes (namely Rina and Julia), 

the property of Mrs. , and disturbing the 

neighborhood with riotous and disorderly conduct." 
Similar presentments of cruelty were made by the grand 
jury in 1849. Again, in 1855 an owner was "presented" 
"for not feeding and clothing his negroes." 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 77 

In Union district twenty-two cases for cruelty to slaves 
were considered. The defendant in one case pleaded guilty ; 
in only four others were convictions reached, though the 
record in none of the cases could be found. 

In Spartanburg district, according to the available 
records, five cases of cruelty to slaves are noted, in only 
one of which a conviction is reached, the sentence being 
one month's imprisonment. 

In Greenville district ten cases charging bad treatment 
of slaves were brought up. One case in 1856 is marked 
"settled." In only three of the others is there a conviction 
secured, the defendant in one being fined $1 ; in another the 
sentence is a fine of $20 and four months' imprisonment; 
in the last no sentence appears. 

In Laurens district three such cases were brought up; 
one was returned by the grand jury "no bill;" in another 
the fine was $5; the last, apparently an unwarranted dis- 
turbance of negroes probably at religious worship by white 
persons, for the charge also includes disturbance of re- 
ligious worship, the defendant was fined $20 and imprison- 
ment one month. 

In a letter to The Rising Sun (Newberry) of April 20, 
1859, from Greenville, which was included in his judicial 
circuit, Judge O'Neall says that in the court then just 
closed quite a large number of the cases on the docket 
were "trespass for hitting or beating a slave." 

In this connection three phases of the subject should 
be noted: First, as already stated, in the case of the mur- 
der of a slave the master's property interest in the slave 
in a large measure protected him from the outsider. It 
is probable that the cases of convictions noted may have 
been from outside aggressors caused by a prosecution by 
the master. We must think of the owner as standing ready 
to punish by legal means any person who should presume 
unprovoked to punish or . whip any of his slaves. But 
while it was not lawful perhaps there was a sort of unwritten 
law* among the white population that a negro caught 
stealing could be whipped with impunity; and it sometimes 

*Recollection of elderly people still living. 



78 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

occurred that on a person's making complaint to the 
master of theft by the latter's slave, though the complain- 
ant was not a slaveholder, the master would turn the slave 
over to him for castigation. The master would possibly 
find this outside correction a means of checking the evil 
of the slave's leaving his cabin at night. Such cases would 
arise — as we know one in Newberry did — from undue 
interference of the patrol. f 

In the next place a difificulty in such prosecutions arose 
in securing evidence. No person of color could testify 
against a white person.* Thus it was that only exceptional 
cases based largely on circumstantial evidence were brought. 
This difficulty applies also in the case of the murder of a 
slave. In one of the records just referred to, a case in 
1844, in which all the papers are preserved, it is shown 
by the affidavits of white persons that the person charged 
with the murder, together with another white man, caught 
the negro stealing potatoes, that they were seen to disappear 
in a swamp forcing the negro along with them with a rope 
around his neck, beating him all the while. A few days 
afterwards the negro was found dead in the swamp as a result 
probably of such treatment. Notwithstanding the prob- 
ability that there was a strong prosecution b\' the master, 
the defendants were acquitted. 

The last point to be noted is the undoubted necessity 
of more or less severe corporal punishment to keep the 
slaves under control. Hence the master and his overseer 
were given by law and public sentiment considerable 
latitude. Only the most flagrant violations of humanity 
were ever likely to find their way into the courts, and even 
then the accused had the decided advantage of every pos- 
sible doubt. In other words, the plantation was a sort of 
governmental unit as to police control of the slave, and to 
its head, the slaveowner, was given in large measure the 

tindex to Sessions Record of Newberry 1849 and 1852. 5 Strobhart 
(Law), 21: State vs. Boozer et all, decided in 1850. 

*By Act of 1740, Statutes at Large, VII, 411, sec 39, when a white 
person was charged with beating the slave of another and no white 
person could qualify as a witness he was to be adjudged guilty if he 
refused to plead. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 79 

sovereign management of its affairs under certain restric- 
tions. Similarly, in a series of articles on "Prospects of 
Southern Agriculture," in DeBow's Review^ is this state- 
ment: 

"The cultivator of the soil is a ruler. The slave- 
owner is more — he is to a certain extent necessarily 
a despot. He makes the regulations that govern his 
plantation and he executes them. It is true he is 
amenable to public opinion for his acts and any fla- 
grant outrage is visited by the laws; but there are a 
thousand incidents of plantation life concealed from 
public view which the law cannot reach." 



CHAPTER VIII 
Trading with Slaves 

One of the most frequent charges with reference to 
negroes noted on the criminal dockets of the sessions 
court is "trading with slaves," "unlawful trading with 
slaves," or "unlawful trafficking with slaves." It is not 
difficult to understand the reason for the enactment of 
laws prohibiting with more or less severe penalties any 
person from trading with a slave. If unrestricted it would 
have meant the indiscriminate petty stealing of farm pro- 
duce, corn, cotton, rice, fowls, eggs and almost anything 
else by the slaves, which opportunity might offer. This 
they would sell to the unscrupulous for a pittance that 
would afford a sort of income which their condition other- 
wise prevented securing. The selling of articles to slaves 
for money or in barter was also prohibited for the same 
reason. The laws against slave trading, however, were 
one of the best illustrations of laws that are put on the 
statute books to be used as occasion demanded. They 
were systematically disregarded by farmer and merchant 

fXXII, 189. 



80 Control of Slaves hi Sotilh Carolina 

when the slave was known to be rehable, or when he was 
sent on an errand to make a purchase. The enactments 
were intended to reach the person who took advantage 
of the illegal traffic for the sake of the proht when he neces- 
sarily knew it was done without the consent of the master. 
"The negro trader" was regarded in much the same light, 
though in a greatly modified sense, as the person who stole 
slaves. By virtue of his business, he became an enemy 
of his fellows and a menace to the established order of 
society, a disturber of the peace of the community. Trad- 
ing with slaves carried with it a social stigma that hampered 
one's reputation. "He is a negro trader" was one of the 
most disagreeable terms that could be applied to a white 
man. Some merchants who did a small business carried 
on this kind of illicit bartering, for it yielded large profits 
as a reward so long as his dealings were undetected and 
so long as he did not incur the positive hatred of the com- 
munity. Pedlers were often looked upon askance because 
they sold to slaves. 

When a slave appeared in the broad open day with money 
and offered to make a purchase it seems that reliable 
merchants sold to him, taking the offer of money as evi- 
dence that he was making the purchase for the master or 
at least with the m^astcr's knowledge and consent, although 
strictly this was unlawful trading making the person so 
engaged liable to the penalties of the act. The provisions 
of the laws prohibited any trading with a slave unless he 
produced a written permit from his master or the overseer 
in whose charge he was. The Charleston Courier of June 
5, 1816, comments editorially on a case recently decided 
by the court, that any acceptance of money from a slave 
without a ticket in trade is unlawful trafficking; it says: 
"The decision is of some importance to retailers 
and most of the trading part of the community. It 
has been found a general practice with them, we are 
informed, to take money from slaves without the 
owner's permission to trade. The money has been 
regarded as the permit. And unless where the large- 
ness of the sum has excited suspicion, that the slave 



Control of Slaves in South Corolina 81 

has not come taiJy by it, the money offered has been 
rarely reiused. It will now be seen that this is illegal: 
and that whosoever receives to the value of one cent 
from a slave without the written permission of the 
owner or manager violates a public law and sub- 
jects himself to a penalty of $200. 

"The law was passed for the benefit of slaveholders. 
They must not find fault then when they send a 
slave to a shop, that he is sent home without the article 
wanted because seven pence cannot be received without 
a ticket from the master. Ye owners of slaves, 
hereafter keep your ink by you or go yourselves 
for what you want. The shopkeeper, w'ho does not 
require this of you is unjust to himself." 
Trading and selling by negroes— free negroes as well as 
slaves— was looked upon as an evil at an early period 
because it afforded encouragement to theft. The Charles- 
ton grand jury several times called attention to it. The 
following section of their presentment in 1737 will serve 
as an illustration:* 

"We present as a grievance the practice of negroes 
buying and selling wares in the streets of Charleston, 
wherebv stolen goods may be concealed and after- 
wards Vended undiscovered, as also negroes gonig 
in boats and canoes up the country tradmg with 
negroes in a clandestine way." 
But none of the laws up to 1796 were severe. They were 
enacted more with a view to reaching and punishing the 
slave than punishing the white man who became his ac- 
complice by trading with him; for example the act of 1751 T 
provided for only a fine of forty shillings for unlawful trad- 
ing by a white person. 

Apparently it was soon realized that more severe meas- 
ures must be resorted to and that the slave from his inherent 
racial thieving tendencies would take the risk of a whipping 
so long as there was some one who would lend his aid 
by becomi ng the purchaser of his stolen goods. The act 

*South Carolina Gazette, Nov. 5, 1737. 
tStatutes at Large, VII, 423, sec. 13. 



82 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

of 1796* made the maximuni penalty fa» trading with a 
slave without a permit $200. But this seems to have 
been an insufficient deterrent — indeed, inv-^reasing of 
penalties appears to have had but little effect. Hence 
in 1817 another act was passed which recited the reason 
for its enactment as follows :t 

"Whereas it is found by experience that the penalties 
heretofore imposed on shopkeepers and other traders 
who deal with negroes without permission of their 
owners, are insufficient, and have not answered the 
ends intended . . . ." 
This statute imposed a maximum fine of $1,000 and twelve 
months' imprisonment on any shopkeeper or his clerk 
who should buy from a slave without his master's permit, 
"corn, rice, peas, or other grain, bacon, flour, tobacco, 
indigo, cotton, hay or other article whatsoever." The 
person trading with the slave was required to retain the 
written permit as a warrant for his trading. In 1834 
another law§ prohibited the purchase of the usual farm 
produce from a slave "either with or without a permit" 
from his master under the same penalties as provided in the 
act of 1817. When a shopkeeper was charged with having 
received from a slave any such articles the burden of proof 
to the contrary rested with the accused. The Charleston 
Courier, in a lengthy editorial on April 18, 1835, says that 
dealers thought that this latter law would seriously inter- 
fere with ihcir business, but the opinion of the editor was 
that it would not interfere with traffic that was understood 
not to be repugnant to the interests of the community 
but to reach the liquor dealer; his popular interpretation 
of the new law is worth quoting: 

"Under the former law the usage has been to sell 
the necessaries and innocent conveniences of life to 
the slave without a permit. The new law contains 
nothing to render this usage more unlawful than it 
was before, and we can see no good reason why it 

♦Statutes at Large, VII, 434. 
tStatutes at Large, VII, 454. 
§Statutes at Large, VI, 516. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 83 

cannot still be innocently indulged in. The main 
object of the old law was to lessen the danger of the 
depredation on the property of owners by making it 
highly penal to purchase from or traffic with their 
slaves. The main object of the new law is to prevent 
slaves from being corrupted in their habits and ruined 
in their constitutions by the use of intoxicating liquors." 
But these two acts failed effectually to check the un- 
lawful and aggravating traffic . The Sumter grand jury 
had said in 1828:* 

"The grand jury of Sumter district present as a 
grievance the permission to shopkeepers and others 
to trade with negroes after dark, even with a ticket 
from their owners, and submit the propriety of the 
passage of a law by the Legislature, imposing a heavy 
penalty upon any one convicted of trading with a 
negro after dark or on the Sabbath even with a permit 
from the owner." 
This same body again in 1834 said, in speaking of negro 
trading, that it "has become the chief object of pursuit 
and the chief source of gain" of many and they appealed to 
every good citizen to contribute his exertion to put it down. 
The following notice appearing in the Rising Sun (New- 
berry) of Jan. 18, 1860, shows the determination of one slave- 
owner to stop unlawful trading: 

"I will give $500 for proof to convict for any one 
buying pork, corn, fodder or any other produce from 
my negroes without a special order from me in my 
own handwriting." 

The following open letter to farmers by "A Citizen," pub- 
lished in the Farmer and Planter of July, 1857, shows the 
kind of small trafficking that is winked at and soon shades 
into the irresponsible and menacing trade: 

"Let me call your attention to the liberties now 
allowed to negroes. Who thinks it necessary to ask 
for a ticket or permit to trade? Just give a fellow 
some chickens, a stolen turkey, or a bushel of corn. 



*MS. records Sumter County. 



'^ ,-^^-^£ttC-t^-'( 



84 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

and let him pace the streets and see how many and 
how respectable are the purchasers. This I adduce 
as the evidence of a loose rein, yes, an uncurbed privi- 
lege. Constant usage for some time has rendered it 
common and unseemingly justifiable, but this will 
lead to ruin if not arrested. Let a white man go to 
town and ofifer a few bushels of potatoes for sale and 

he ... is told Mr. and Mrs. 

negroes bring them here every day at such and such 
a price. I am not talking of this matter as a pecuniary 
consideration but alone to show the widespread ruin 
that awaits us as slaveholders, unless this thing is 
checked and our negroes are brought to chalk a line, 
and the only means available is in our prompt action 
with the offending. If you will not inflict upon them 
the punishment provided by our laws, then inflict 
that one of caste and disgrace. Make him feel his 
inferiority, and feel it, too, in his pocket, the surest 
road to the heart of such offenders; better this than 
the ruin that awaits you in your present course." 

The magazine then comments editorially on the com- 
munication as follows: 

"The following communication is received just at 
a time, owing to local circumstances, we feel strongly 
inclined to put a stop to a prevailing practice that 
is having a bad effect on our slaves. Custom we know 
has done rnuch toward tolerating the practice of buy- 
ing from slaves, but we think it high time to put a 
stop to the custom. We never could see any more 
propriety in one man buying poultry, eggs, etc., 
from a negro than in another buying meat, corn, or 
other products not usually made by the slave. The 
latter practice is much less frequent than the former. 

"Also, turn over a new leaf with your overseer, 
exact a greater degree of vigilance and use the same 
yourself. . . . It is indispensable for the welfare 
of all concerned." 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 85 

The two selections above were copied in the Laurensville 
Herald with the following comment by that paper rf 

"We honestly believe that more injury is done to 
the slaves by trafficking with them than in any other 

way 

"We earnestly call upon our housekeepers to set 
their faces against trafficking with negroes without 
permission from their owners. One of the greatest 
complaints made by our friends in the country against 
the village is, that they will traffick with their negroes, 
thereby encouraging them to steal and giving them 
the means of buying liquor and to engage in gambling. 
The fact is, we look upon it as a very dishonest trans- 
action." 
One thing which encouraged the trading, indeed, made 
much of it necessary, was the humane custom of allowing 
to the slave a garden, or cotton or corn patch to be culti- 
vated after work hours or after a task had been finished, 
or the privilege of raising poultry, the products of which 
the slave was allowed to dispose of as he might see fit. 
This made some selling by the slave of his products neces- 
sary, and the frequency of such a custom caused owners 
to neglect to furnish the legal permit. The custom of this 
side farm found its way into Grayson's Hireling and Slave: 
"Calm in his peaceful home the slave prepares 
His garden spot, and plies his rustic cares; 
The comb and honey that his bees afford. 
The eggs in ample gourd compactly stored. 
The pig, the poultry, with a chapman's art. 
He sells or barters at the village mart, 
Or at the master's mansion, never fails 
An ampler price to find and readier sales." 
Often the produce was bought by the master or sold at 
the market by him to overcome this very objection of 
unlawful traffic* The serious objection to this encourage- 

fThe comment of the Herald is reproduced in the July number of 
the Farmer and Planter. 

*01msted: Seaboard Slave States, p. 68; Pamphlet: Refutations 
of Calumnies against the Southern and Western States. 



86 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

merit of the slave's thrift lay in the fact that it helped to 
cover up his thefts from other people in the community.! 
Furthermore the objection could be made that it put money 
in his hands for evil purposes, buying liquor and gambling. 
This latter objection does not appear to have been much 
advanced, since probably the owner's interest in keeping 
the slaves up to the highest point of industrial efficiency 
would cause him to refuse such privileges to his slaves 
if they were taken advantage of in this way. 

A large majority of the cases relating to slavery that 
appeared on the dockets of the sessions courts were charges 
against white persons for trading with slaves. Anything 
more than the briefest summary of the cases tried and how 
disposed of would give but little light on the subject. But 
these dockets will be suggestive as to the proportion of 
the convictions and the penalties imposed. 

In Williamsburg district the available dockets from 1817 
to 1860 show that about 35 per cent, of the indictments 
reached conviction. The highest penalty imposed was in 
1856 when a fine of $100 and two months' imprisonment 
was the sentence. 

The records of Darlington district show convictions in 
about 40 per cent, of the indictments. The penalties range 
from one month's imprisonment and a fine of $20 to six 
months and a fine of $250. The fines and terms of im- 
prisonment are evidently arranged with a view to suiting 
the punishment to the relative financial condition of the 
convicts; some are given a term of imprisonment with no 
fine while others are given from one to three months' term 
with a heavier fine. 

In Sumter district, where it seems that for some reason 
the law was better enforced, the records from 1827 to 1860 
show that there were convictions in about 48 per cent, 
of the cases brought for negro trading. For a period of 
four years, 1827-1831, the authorities appear to have laid 
a heavy hand on the unlawful traders, there being ten 
convictions out of a total of fourteen cases. The heaviest 
sentence was a fine of $500 and four months' imprisonment 

^DeBow's Review, XVII, 424. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 87 

— the fine was "remitted," however, by the governor. In 
five of the other cases the fine was $200 with varying 
terms of imprisonment. The effect was noticeable; for a 
decade the percentage of indictments for trading with 
slaves was unusually small. 

In Kershaw district the records show convictions in 
about 38 per cent, of the indictments. The journal is 
very unsatisfactory, often stating the mere fact of con- 
viction with no sentence attached. In two cases, in 1808 
and 1809, the penalty was a fine of vS200 and costs; in an- 
other in 1845 the penalty was six weeks' imprisonment. 

For Marlborough district the percentage of convictions 
is 43. The highest punishment imposed was six months' 
imprisonment and a fine of $200; the smallest penalty 
was a fine of $50 ; in another case it was fixed at $50 and one 
month's imprisonment. 

The records of Greenville district from 1817 to 1860 
reveal convictions in only about 20 per cent, of the cases 
tried. The heaviest penalty imposed was in 1843 and was 
two months' imprisonment and a fine of $100; in another 
the sentence was one month's imprisonment and a fine 
of one cent. The large percentage of women charged is 
noticeably higher than in those of any other district visited. 
Convictions in 39 per cent, of the cases brought in 
Spartanburg district from 1806 to 1860 were reached. 
The penalties imposed range from two weeks' imprison- 
ment and a fine of $1 to five months and $100. There 
seems at no time to have been any long sustained effort 
to break up the evil as was the case in Sumter district. 

Union district presents, for its population, a very large 
array of indictments for negro trading and succeeded in 
convicting only 30 per cent, of the persons so charged in 
the period, 1815-1860. The sentences recorded are the 
usual ones, ranging not higher than a fine of $100 and the 
usual term of a few months' imprisonment. 

The docket in Laurens district shows nothing more than 
ordinary in the prosecution of offenders against the law 
prohibiting whites from trading with negroes. Convictions 
were secured in about 42 per cent, of the cases brought. 
The sentence in one case was a fine of $500; in another, 



88 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

$200 and three months' imprisonment; while in another 
it was as small as a fine of $\ and one month's imprison- 
ment. 

Probably in quite a number of these cases cited the 
charge was compromised by the persons concerned, thus 
making the indictments and convictions fewer than they 
would have been. The cases appearing on the dockets 
do not give even a comparatively approximate idea of 
the number of offenses as the cases of stealing of slaves 
do. Many an illicit trader was never brought to justice 
because of the expense and trouble as compared with the 
value of the stolen articles trafificked in and because of 
lack of evidence sufficient to convict. 

This matter of securing the evidence necessary to con- 
viction was one of the greatest difficulties to be overcome. 
Where illicit trading was suspected the master would often 
send his slave with instructions to effect a bargain while 
he was near in hiding. The Constitutional Court held in 
1819* that trading with a slave in the presence of his 
master, the latter failing to sanction it, would be construed 
as illicit trading. The difficult legal situation led a con- 
tributor to the Charleston Mercury of Dec. 5, 1859, to 
consider the advisability of accepting the oath of a negro 
in court against a white man for trading, provided the slave's 
master would testify to the truthfulness of the negro offered 
as a witness. 

But with all these precautions the enforcement of the 
law in the ordinary way seemed near to impossible. It 
will be explained in a later chapter that there were organized, 
particularly about 1859, unofficial community associations 
for the purpose of dealing with the abolitionists and other 
incendiary persons. But as early as 1850 there had existed 
similar organizations for dealing with the illicit trader. 
Indeed it is quite probable that it is these same earlier 
protective societies against negro trading that were later 
turned into societies to protect against abolitionism as 
well, or at least added this to the list of the things they 
would attend to; or, the dis turbed feelings of 1859 gave 

*2 Nott & McCord, 27: State vs. Anone. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 



89 



rise to other organically new societies framed on the same 
model. But these earlier organizations with vigilance 
committees were formed to compass the evil of negro trading 
by lawful prosecution if possible, and by extra-legal methods 
if necessary. The description of one such organization 
will suffice as an illustration: At Cartersville (now in 
Florence county), a small country village, a meeting of 
the citizens of the community was held, determined to 
stamp out trafficking with slaves.* They appear to have 
had in mind unlawful means of dealing with the evil, for 
the first of their resolutions passed was that they would 
boycott any attorney who would undertake to prosecute 
their society. They themselves passed resolutions favorable 
to a heavier punishment for trading to the extent that any 
person so convicted should be disqualified from giving 
evidence before a court or of voting or enjoying any of 
the privileges of citizenship. The Darlington paper re- 
marked editorially on the meeting as follows:! 

"The proceedings of the Vigilance Society will be 
read with interest. The negro traders about Carters- 
ville have raised a set of men who will give them trouble. 
Let us be vigilant, watchful and discreet, determined 
and unyielding; these rascals can be conquered." 
A news note in the Keowee Courier (Pickens) of February 
19, 1859, has the following: 

"Trafficking with Slaves— A number of the citizens 
of Abbeville District, assembled on the 15th ult. for 
the purpose of taking measures to prevent illicit traffic 
between mean white men and the slaves. A vigilance 
committee was appointed to rid the neighborhood of 
these pests." 
These movements, as has just been said, indicate the 
ineffectiveness of the legal means of dealing with the situ- 
ation. There was one penalty that had not been tried— 
that was whipping for the person so offending. In 1850, 
Governor Seabrook had the following to say of the traffic 
and its possible remedy: ___^ 

*The Farmer and Planter, Dec, 1857. 
tQuoted in the Farmer and Planter, Dec, 1857. 



90 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

"Unlawful trading and trafficking with slaves, by 
which a white person knowingly inflicts upon society, 
and especially his vicinage, widespread and prolific 
evils, is perhaps one of the very few offenses deserv- 
ing of corporal punishment." 
In 1853 the grand jury of Spartanburg district had noted 
the growing evil of negro trading and had made the follow- 
ing recommendation, which was repeated in substance 
in 1857: 

"Present as a Nuisance the existing Laws relating to 
the punishment of Persons convicted for trading with 
Slaves— that in many cases, perhaps the majority, 
fine and imprisonment does not operate as a correc- 
tive to the evil — and recommend that the law should 
be so altered as to superadd the punishment of whip- 
ping, in such cases as it may be proper in the opinion 
of the court to inflict." 
In the spring of 1857 and again at the fall term the Union 
grand jury, after noting that the law was a dead letter, 
recommended that the punishment be made corporal. 
The Williamsburg grand jury in the fall of 1857 recom- 
mended that the legislature make whipping the punish- 
ment for negro trading. A meeting at Darlington discussed 
unlawful trafficking and passed resolutions, one of which 
was a memorial that for the second offense whipping be 
made the penalty. 

The general assembly at its session that winter passed 
the necessary act,* providing that upon a second convic- 
tion for negro trading the offender might, unless it hap- 
pened to be a white woman, in addition to other penalties, 
receive thirty-nine lashes. 

It is not probable that this penalty was ever suffered by 
many, if it ever occurred at all. None of the sessions 
journals of the districts examined by the writer records 
such a sentence. It was probably intended more as a 
deterrent than as an actual penalty. When this extreme 
measure was resorted to, it is more probable that it was 

*Statutes at Large, XII, 526. A bill similar in its provisions had 
been before the lower house in 1850. Journals of the House. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 91 

done by the hands of a mob. The debate in the senate 
on the measure is enhghtening. Senator TiUinghast op- 
posed it in toto. Senator Moses, who seems to have had 
the bill in charge, stated that there were many requests 
before the committee which had the bill under consideration 
from grand juries requesting its passage; he felt that the 
state had more to fear from the illicit trader than from the 
abolitionist; "the people have been compelled to organize 
themselves into vigilance committees and inflict punish- 
ment with the lash upon such offenders;" imprisonment 
had been found to be ineffective; gambling with negroes 
was common all over the state until whipping was made 
the penalty for it.f Senator Irby approved of the bill, 
expressing the belief that the threat of corporal punish- 
ment would be sufficient to cause them to leave the com- 
munity rather than submit to it. In the case of gambling 
only one person to his knowledge had been whipped as 
punishment.* 

Another phase of unlawful negro trading was selling or 
bartering liquor to slaves. There was perhaps much less 
difficulty encountered in preventing this than in preventing 
other illicit trading, for under no circumstances is it ordi- 
narily to be presumed that it was agreeable to the master 
for his slaves to have whiskey. If the master desired it 
for his own use there was no great difficulty about sending 
a written order, which was probably done. To keep liquor 
from the slave was to the interest of everybody except 
the dealer in such wares; the master's interest was in having 
a sober laborer, the community's interest was in having 
an orderly negro in their midst. These interests together 
perhaps fairly well control led its sale to the negro in the 

tStatutes at Large, VII, 468, sec. 6, Act 1834. 

*The debate is reported fully in the Charleston Courier of Dec. 7, 
1857. Possibly the case referred to in Laurens by Senator Irby is the 
one on the criminal records for that district in 1852 and where the 
defendant was given a sentence of twenty lashes. Very few cases 
came before the courts. The only other of the kind that came to the 
writer's notice was one in Greenville in 1836 where the defendant, 
upon conviction, received the following sentence: "Twenty lashes, 
imprisonment for two weeks; $20 recognizance for good behavior." 



92 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

rural sections. Still, sometimes it was the case that masters 
gave a small allowance of liquor to the slaves on holiday 
occasions. Perhaps this custom is referred to in a present- 
ment of the grand jury of Marlborough district in 1849: 
"We present as a grievance the pernicious practice of al- 
lowing negroes the free use of ardent spirits/'f 

The act of 1740 provided a fine* of £5 for selling liquor 
to a slave without a permit. It would seem, however, 
that until late in the slavery regime the laws on trading were 
usually resorted to to punish the person who sold liquor to 
a slave. § This further bears out the former statement 
that the securing of liquor by slaves was not so common. 
The penalties for trading were adequate and there would 
be less question as to the circumstances surrounding the 
deal to interfere with its enforcement. Even after a 
specific act on selling spirits to slaves was passed probably 
the case continued to be brought under the charge of un- 
lawful trading, for the penalties were heavier. In none 
of the dockets to which the writer has had access is there 
any indictment brought under the specific charge of liquor 
selling until 1840 or thereabouts. But in 1858 the Court of 
Appeals decided that a person for one case of selling liquor 
to a slave could not be convicted for illicit trading and then 
for selling of liquor to a slave. -^ 

In 1831 1! a law was enacted prohibiting any free negro 
from owning or operating a still under a penalty of fifty 
lashes. The wisdom of this as a police precaution is quite 
evident. No master was allowed under a penalty of a fine 
of $100 and imprisonment for one month to allow any of 
his slaves to have any part in the manufacture and sale 
of alcoholic beverages. In 1850 a white man in Laurens 

tMS. records Marlborough County. 

*Statutes at Large, VII, 408, sec. 32. 

§This seems to be the method resorted to and so interpreted by the 
Constitutional Court as legal and that one could twice be convicted for 
the same offense, for unlawful selling of whiskey and for trading with 
slaves. 2 Nott & McCord (Law), 280: State vs. Sonncrkalb, decided 
in 1820. 

h\ Richardson (Law), 447: State vs. Brock. 
llStatutes at Large, VII, 467. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 93 

district was found guilty in two cases for "suffering slave 
to vend spirituous liquors" and fined $50 in each instance. 
In 1834 an act was passed* proiiibiting, under a penalty of 
a fine of $100 and six months' imprisonment, selling liquor 
to a slave without a permit from his master. Every vendor 
of alcoholic beverages was to be required before his license 
was issued to take an oath not to sell to any slave any 
liquor unless on a permit from his master or overseer, 
and on application for a renewal of his license he was to be 
required to take oath that he had not heretofore sold 
liquor to slaves in violation of law. 

As to the enforcement of the laws just referred to some 
occasional reference will throw light upon the question. 
In 1744 the Charleston grand jury complained of the habit 
of selling rum to negroes. f In the Columbia Free Press 
and Hive of September 3, 1831, is an open communication 
from "Good Order" which for the light it gives is quoted 
in full: 

"To the Honorable Town Council of Columbia: 

"As the licenses for the retailing of spirituous liquors 
will soon expire I take the liberty of respectfully 
calling your attention to the situation of certain 
licensed Grog Shops in this town. 

"It is a fact public and notorious that many re- 
tailers are in the constant habit, day and night and 
more especially on Sundays, of selling liquor to the 
negroes, in utter defiance of the laws of the state 
and of the corporation. 

"The Council have the power of putting a stop to 
practices so disgraceful to the town and ruinous to 
negro property. 

"If the Council will on the first of October next 
refuse licenses to all those shopkeepers whose houses 
have been the notorious resort of negroes the evil 
will be in a great measure remedied. Such a measure 
will meet the support of every friend of 

"Good Order." 

*Statutes at Large, VI, 468. 

^Soiith Carolina Gazette, Nov. 5, 1 744. 



94 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

Here the reader may be cited agaiti to the report of Mayor 
Robert Y. Hayne, of Charleston, m 1837, quoted in a 
chapter below, in which he speaks of the effort lieing made 
to break up the connection of the colored population with 
the dram shops. The report of Mayor William Porcher 
Miles in 1857 is even better and the part relating to this 
phase is quoted in full:* 

"When the police was reorganized one of the first 
objects to which their attention was strenuously 
directed was the suppression of the practice of selling 
liquor to slaves and of the illegal traffic with them 
generally. The extent to which this nefarious busi- 
ness is carried on would surprise and alarm the com- 
munity were they thoroughly informed on the sub- 
ject. The number of shops where the negroes habitu- 
ally meet to drink and gamble, with the proceeds 
frequently of the robbery of their masters, is very 
great. The daily confession of the negroes themselves, 
in the police court, would be sufficient to convince 
any one who might entertain a doubt on the subject. 
Against this great and crying evil the police have 
waged a constant war. They have thus made them- 
selves odious to a large and (as far as elections go) 
influential class. And here I deem it my solemn duty 
to urge upon the citizens of Charleston the necessity 
of some more efficient legislation for the remedy of 
abuses which are tending to undermine the institu- 
tion of slavery in our very midst, year after year, by 
the moral as well as the physical deterioration of our 
negroes." 
A summary of the police court proceedings written daily 
for the Evening News, of Charleston, in 1856, taken for 
the month of September as a representati\e month, shows 
that nearly all the cases against negroes originate in drunk- 
enness or may in some way be connected with it. 

Governor Allston, in 1857, in his annual message deplores 
the fact that there is so much unlawful selling of liquor 
to slaves. While he makes this statement there is no 

*Pamphlet: Mayor's Report on City Affairs of Charleston, 1857. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 95 

reason to believe that it was such a widespread evil or 
such a systematic disregard of the law as there was in the 
case of illicit trading with slaves. The law was often 
doubtless violated, but it was not common or uncontrol- 
able.* 



CHAPTER IX 

Slaves Hiring Their Own Time 

Up to this point we have considered the slave almost 
exclusively as an agricultural laborer, living on a large 
plantation and working under an overseer and driver, or 
in smaller groups on small farms working perhaps along 
with the owner and the owner's sons. The system of 
control for this kind of laborers, all grouped together on 
small farms with a generous sprinkling of whites or on the 
larger plantations where whites were fewer, is comparatively 
simple. But as time went on many of the negroes came to 
adapt themselves in some measure to their surroundings 
and to acquire considerable skill as mechanics, blacksmiths, 
carpenters or similar partially skilled laborers. If the 
plantation were large the most apt in any line, for instance 
as carpenter, was likely to be kept at that kind of work 
on the place all the time. On the smaller farms no such 
opportunity for developing and making constant use of 
such special skill was offered. Hence often the owners 
hired slaves who showed mechanical skill, to other men 
engaged in that kind of undertaking, because the remuner- 
ation for such services per year usually netted a better 
income than when retained as a "farm hand." Slaves 
might, of course, be hired to others to work on farms as 
well. But this was not a permanent arrangement, for the 
renting out of a slave in this way was not ordinarily profit- 

*The cases on the sessions dockets are few in number — another evi- 
dence of the probability that the cases were brought merely for trading— 
and not sufficient for comparisons, but in the few cases found the penal- 
ties were similar to those imposed for trading. 



96 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

able, because slaves under oxerwork would rapidly deteri- 
orate and the pa>nicnt made for iheni for this purpose 
was not considerable. But it sometimes occurred as a 
shift for settling up an estate, where the executor did not 
wish the farm responsibility, or where the owner had a 
surplus laborer and disliked to break up the family. f 

In all these cases the person to whom the slave was hired 
came to sustain in the eyes of the law the same relation to 
the slave to protect, care for, and restrain as did the master. 
The master, of course, always had recourse by law to recover 
his sla^■e from the custody of the person to whom he was 
hired in case of cruelty or lack of proper sustentation. 

It was not always the case that a slave could be hired 
to another person except for a long period of time, but he 
might be able to earn for his master a good income by job 
work at odd times, realizing more than for being hired to 
another for a long time. But working out on odd jobs 
necessarily took him out from under the eye and direct 
supervision of the master, and nobody else's control was 
substituted for that of the master. It is easy to see how 
a slave might be employed in this way exclusively as a 
source of income to the master so long as he pro\ ed faithful, 
industrious and orderh-. This privilege would afford him 
quite a good deal more of freedom than the field hand had. 
It may here be remarked that the place of a field hand was 
regarded by the slave as the most menial, so much so that 
a threat to a house servant that he would be transferred 
to the field was usually quite sufficient to make him more 
diligent and attentive to his duties. Thus it often came 
about that in many cases the master had a complete ar- 
rangement or agreement with his slave that the latter would 
be allowed to work at his trade, or job w'ork, going and 
coming as he pleased pro\ided he brought the master each 

t Negroes for Hire 
On Monday, the Isl of January next, before the court-house in Colum- 
bia, will be hired for one year, the negroes belonging to tlio children of 

, deceased, by order of the guardian. 

Dec. 22. . 

Southern Times and Stale Gazette, Dec. 22, 1837. Sec also Harlcy 
vs. DeWitt, 2 Hill (Chancery), 367, in 1835. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 97 

week or month a specified sum or part of his earnings, 
all over and above that amount being allowed to the slave. 
This was called the slave's "hiring out his time," or 
more accurately it was the master "hiring out" the slave's 
time to the slave himself for which the slave paid a stipu- 
lated amount. The custom of "hiring out" the slave's 
time was not common in the rural districts. At any rate 
it was not so common as in the cities and smaller towns, 
where it came to be really the established economic order 
of things. Indeed, in the cities where a slaveowner kept 
slaves with him on his premises his relation to the public 
was not unlike the liveryman. The advantage to the master 
was that the slave needed less constant care than the horse. 
This statement, however, is not to be taken to imply that 
there was a distinct class considerable in numbers who 
thus, so to speak, capitalized their slaves. The slavery 
system was based essentially on the agricultural regime 
and no other. Its system of control was fixed on the basis 
of the slave's forever remaining a "field hand" or at best 
remaining attached to a plantation. But the city had 
other work for the slave to do which rendered the original 
plan of regulation cumbersome and unsuitable. The 
gradual advance of the negroes in acquiring skill was slowly 
solving the problem of emancipation. It would seem that 
this hiring out of the slave would have proven to be the 
point of departure from the old slavery system to a new 
economic organization of labor; not that the movement 
would have been rapid in South Carolina, much more 
conservatism being felt here than in most other slave- 
holding communities. 

Legal emancipation except by special enactment was 
forbidden after 1820. But the hiring of their own time to 
slaves was often used to bring about virtually the same 
result. It sometimes was the reward of faithfulness or 
the way of showing unusual interest in any particular 
slave. Here opens a field of conjecture: How soon would 
an industrial emancipation of the fittest have been accom- 
plished by this quasi-freedom? Would it have ever reached 
the negroes on the plantation? There is very serious doubt 
whether slaves allowed during the greater part of their 



98 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

lifetime to hire their own time were ever afterwards held 
as slaves by heirs of the estate. 

But this system of hiring slaves their time involved 
certain difficulties. It made the slaves so favored practi- 
cally free from control and gave opportunities for becoming 
disorderly in the community. Indeed, it sometimes en- 
couraged their becoming idle and indulged their indolence, 
and in order to meet the weekly payments to their masters, 
the price of their quasi-freedom, they had an unfortunate 
inducement to steal. A communication to the Charleston 
Courier of September 12, 1850, complained that no domestic 
servants could be had because the slaves were allowed to 
hire their time and then complain to their master at the 
end of the month that they could secure no work to do. 
The grand jury of Union district had the following to say 
in the spring of 1857 of the custom of hiring to negroes 
their time:* 

"Certain individuals are in the habit of hiring out 
to their slave his own time which he spends in traffick- 
ing about o\er the country very much to the loss of 
the farmer who finds it difficult to supply his own table 
with eggs and poultry. Everything is picked up by 
these negro pedlars and as there is a sort of free masonry 
about negro intercourse it is hard to detect the wrong- 
doer." 

To the same effect is a quotation from an editorial in the 
Rising Sun (Newberry) of May 19, 1858, that gives the 
worst possible view of the custom; very probably the 
picture is much overdrawn: 

"We believe now, always have believed and always 
will believe while we can kick, that the plan of hiring 
slaves their own time is unwise, impolitic and works 
injury to the hired as well as to the other slaves where- 
ever they are thrown. It renders slaves dissatisfied, 
makes them worthless and lazy, corrupts and spoils 
them, and all others with whom they associate. They 
become liars, rogues, villains and perpetrate anything 
that will enable them free of work to pay their wages. 

*MS. records of Union County. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 99 

We have our eyes on one or two slaves who hire I heir 
own time, rent houses and pretend to do, nobody 
knows what. It is objectionable and ought to be 
done away with."' 

It will be seen that this practice acted as a virtual sus- 
pension of all slave regulation and if widely established 
would have led to great evils. Hence from 1712 there 
were laws prohibiting it. The codes of 1712 and 1740 
prohibited it with small fines. An act of 1822|| made any 
slave who had been permitted to "hire out" his time 
liable to seizure, confiscation and sale as in case of a slave 
illegally introduced into the state. The act of 1849* 
made more intelligent provision by making the penalty 
merely a fine of $50 on the owner of the slave allowed to 
hire his time, one-half going to the informer. 

Abundant evidence can be cited to show that the law 
was almost totally disregarded and that apparently no 
effort was made to enforce it. A city ordinance of Charles- 
ton of 1800§ (recognizing apparently that the law was 
being constantly violated) undertook to regulate the prac- 
tice by requiring every owner who had slaves hired out on 
their own account to secure a badge from the cit\' author- 
ities on payment of a small fee. This was put in more s\s- 
tematic form in 1846 by a provision that the badge should 
show in what kind of work the slave was engaged and date 
(year issued)^ and that it must be worn by the slave in a 
conspicuous place; failure by the master to comply was 
punishable with a fine of two dollars. An editorial in the 
Charleston Mercury of December 10, 1859, says that few- 
even of these badges were worn, but that it was understood 
that the police had been ordered to enforce the law. An 
ordinance of the town of Marion in 1858 was similar f 
although it appears to have been primarily a revenue 
measure. It prohibited any owner to allow his slave "to 

I [Statutes at Large, VII, 462, sec. 6. 

*Statiites at Large, XI, 563. 

§Printed Ordinances, 1800. There may have been earlier ones. 

tCharleston Courier, Dec. 24, 1846. 

\Marion Star, Feb. 2, 1858. 



100 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

follow any permiinent employment" except after paying 
a small license fee. 

Of the class of negroes to which this custom gave rise 
Pollard says:t 

"You must know that our colored gentry (many of 
whom, as the custom is here, make considerable money 
by hiring their own time and paying their masters 
a stated sum for the privilege) not only maintain 
parsons and build churches, but hire carriages to 
attend them." 
The grand juries of Charleston as early as 1734 had com- 
plained of the evils of the practice.* 

The grand jury of Darlington in 1849 said:§ 

"We present the practice of negroes hiring their 
own time from their owners and owning horses and 
travelling in buggies, wagons, etc., as a nuisance in 
this district calculated to produce a spirit of insub- 
ordination amongst the slave population." 
The Newberry grand jury in 1859 said:^ 

"The law in relation to slaves hiring their own time 

is not enforced with sufficient promptness and efficiency 

as to accomplish the object designed by its enactment." 

No effort appears to have been made to enforce the law. 

The available court records of nine counties reveal only 

two cases of prosecutions for this offense ; one case was in 

Darlington district in 1855 in which the document was 

returned by the grand jury "no bill." The other was in 

Marlborough in the same year, the bill bearing the following 

returns: "true bill," "not arrested," "not guilty." 

Industrial competition finally showed its hand. The 
skilled free negro workmen were formidable enough, but 
to these was added this semi-free class of slaves. The 
Vesey plot of 1822 had called attention to the danger from 
this growing class of colored laborers. In a series of 

tPollard, E. A.: Black Diamonds, p. 37, published 1859. 
*South Carolina Gazelle, March 30, 1734. 
§MS. records County Clerk of Court's office, Darlington. 
tMS. records County Clerk of Court's office, Newberry. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 101 

articles published in the South Carolina State Gazette in 
October and November of that year, and later printed 
in pamphlet form, said of the skilled negro laborer in con- 
nection with the problem of his control: 

"The great fundamental principle should be that 
the slave should be kept as much confined as possible 
to agricultural labors. These so employed are found 
to be the most orderly and obedient of the slaves, 
. . . There should be no black mechanics or 
artisans, at least in the cities. These are placed, by 
the nature of their employments, much more from 
under the eye and inspection of their masters, and they 
acquire vicious habits injurious to themselves as well 
as their owners, and of evil example to other slaves." 
It appears also that the organizations of mechanics had 
in three different memorials already petitioned the legis- 
lature for relief from competition with slaves who were 
allowed to hire their time and work out as mechanics. 
These together with a recent presentment of the Charles- 
ton grand jury and proposed bills to remedy the evils com- 
plained of were referred to a legislative committee,* whose 
report reviewed the acts of 1822 and 1849 on the subject 
and certain proposed bills, expressing the opinion that the 
latter cover the same ground already covered by the laws 
previously enacted. The committee found itself very 
much at loss for a remedy but suggested that certain labor- 
ers from among the slaves be allowed to hire their time. 
No law came as a result of their suggestions. Some of 
their statements on the subject are well worth quoting: 
"The evil complained of is, that slaves are allowed 
to go at large, exercise all the privileges of free persons, 
make contracts, do work, and every way live and 
conduct themselves as if they were not slaves. . . . 
The evil is, he buys the control of his own time from 
his owner. By the payment of a stipulated amount of 
wages he avoids the discipline and surveillance of 
his master and is separated from his observation and 

*Pamphlet: Report of Colored Population, Dec. 7, 1858, to the 
Legislature, Charleston Library-. 



102 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

superintendence. We agree fully with the Memorial- 
ists who complain of this evil — but the ground is much 
more general than the one set up in these Bills. The 
evil lies in the breaking down the relation between 
master and slave — the removal of the slave from the 
master's discipline and control and the assumption 
of freedom and independence on the part of the slave, 
the idleness, disorder and crime which are consequen- 
tial, and the necessity thereby created for additional 
police regulations to keep them in subjection and 
order, and the trouble and expense they involve. 

"Yet there is something to be said in relation to 
carrying that relation into effect. We are a slave- 
holding people habituated to slave labor and domestic 
labor of our state. We have towns and villages, 
however, where ordinary labor is to be performed 
which can be done either by whites or negroes. We 
are accustomed to black labor and it w^ould create 
a revolution to drive it away. The domestic ser^-ants, 
most of the common laborers and porters, draymen, 
wagoners and cartmen and on the seaboard stevedores 
are mostly negroes; but they are all included in the 
general inhibition of the acts of 1822 and 1849. It 
would be impossible to have this sort of slave labor, 
if there must be a contract with the owner for every 
specific job — as for instance the transportation of 
a load in a wagon or dray, the carrying of a passenger's 
trunk to or from a railroad, etc. The subject is, 
therefore, full of difficulty and until you can change 
the direction of the public prejudice, prepossession 
and habit you can never enforce a law that conflicts 
with them." 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 103 

CHAPTER X 
The Slave Trade, Foreign and Domestic 



The foreign slave trade though not coming properly within 
the range of our subject may be referred to at this point.* 
In 1787 an act was passedf prohibiting the trade entirely, 
both foreign and domestic. The acts were temporary 
but were renewed from time to time before their expiration 
until 1803. Provision was made, however, to allow persons 
who intended to become bona fide citizens to bring their 
slaves into the state with them, or any slaves acquired by a 
marriage formed without the state could also be intro- 
duced. Every precaution was thrown around the act 
and heavy penalties for its violation were provided. Not- 
withstanding the vigilance of the ol^cers of the law, Gov- 
ernor James B. Richardson, in his annual message of 1803, 
said that the traffic had continued and apparently could 
not be stopped. § The message betrays the trace of a 
desire that the restrictions be removed, and in the same 
year the legislature repealed all former acts prohibiting 
the traffic, while the repealing measure still prohibitt;<^ the 
importance of any male slave over fifteen years of age 
from any sister state. The breaking of a New Orleans 
levee would perhaps be the best illustration of the inunda- 
tion of blacks that flooded the state. It was worse be- 
cause this was the only state which opened its ports to 
them at this time. During the four years that the foreign 
trade was allowed until 1808, when the traffic was forbidden 

*For a list of the colonial acts passed with a view to restricting foreign 
importations, see Dubois: Suppression of the Slave Trade, p. 9, and 
for further summaries, see Appendix A and B of the same work. 

tStatutes at Large, VII, 430. 

§The records of Marlborough district preserve two indictments in 
1802 for the bringing of slaves into the state. In one of the cases 
fifty-two slaves were introduced. The indictments in both instances 
were returned "no bill." These slaves were probably brought in from 
North Carolina as this was a border district with no port. 



104 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

by federal statute,* 39,075 slaves were thrown into the 
state. t 

One of the disastrous effects of the passage of the law, 
though small comparatively if we are to believe Ramsay, § 
was to cause more than a hundred Quakers, a thrifty, law- 
abiding class of citizens, who had religious scruples about 
slavery, to leave the state for Ohio, selling their lands at a 
sacrifice. During the first two decades of the nineteenth 
century about twelve hundred Quakers left South Carolina 
for the middle West as the result probably of the laws of 
this period favorable to the slavery interests. Whole com- 
munities left Piney Grove in Marlborough district and 
Bush River in Newberry district. I 

Efforts were made to repeal the wide-open policy of the 
act of 1803, pleas being made by the governor in 1805 and 
again in 1806 on every available consideration. One was 
that the state should take action before it was forced upon 
her by congress, as was likely to be the case by 1808. But 
the appeals were futile. In 1805 the lower house passed a 
bill prohibiting the traffic, but it was lost on second reading 
in the senate by a vote of 15 to 16 because the upper house 
insisted that the interestate traffic be permitted if the 
foreign were prohibited.il In 1806 a similar bill passed the 
house of representatives with only two dissenting votes** 
but failed on second reading in the senate by a vote of 
16 to 16. tt Perhaps the interests of the slave trade could 
not be overcome and the state possibly hoped to gain some 
advantage from the slaves entering at Charleston and 
Georgetown with a view to being then sent west. 

*U. S. Statutes at Large, II, 426. 

tSpeech of Senator Smith, of South Carolina, in the United States 
Senate, Dec. 8, 1820. Annals of Congress, 16th Cong., 2ndSe9s., p. 77. 
See also Collins: Domestic Slave Trade of the Southern States, pp. 
11 and 39. 

§Quoted by Weeks: Southern Quakers and Slavery, p. 266. 

tSchaper: Sectionalism in South Carolina, p. 393; Weeks: South- 
ern Quakers and Slavery, pp. 269-270. 

WCharleston Courier, Dec. 9, 10, 18, 1805. 

**Charleston Courier, Dec. 17, 1806. 

^^Charleston Courier, Dec. 24, 1806. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 105 

The agitation for the reopening of the slave trade in the 
fifties may be passed over briefly. Dubois* finds the de- 
sire for cheap labor at the bottom of this agitation, and this 
certainly must have been a contributing cause. But the 
general controversy over the slavery question must have 
had another reason, which begot a sort of dare-devil 
spirit on the part of Southern blood to show its confidence 
in the righteousness of their cause, to overcome any doubts 
that were arising in their minds. The majority of Southern 
sentiment would not, it can be safely said, have tolerated 
the suggestion but for the offset it afforded abolitionism. 
The fuse was fired by the capture of the Echo, an African 
slave vessel, near Charleston harbor in August, 1858, with 
three hundred and six slaves aboard— afterwards reshipped 
to Africa by the Colonization Society. f The legislature 
in 1857 appointed a committee to investigate the desirability 
of reopening the foreign trade, referring to it the recommend- 
ation of the governor to that effect. The majority of the 
committee— all but one— reported favorably to the project.! 
This leads up to the question of the interstate traffic, 
which has a closer bearing on the question of police control. 
It is true that had there been a continued influx of the 
foreign element it would have to be studied more fully in 
its bearing on the conduct of the negroes already present 
within the state but as it soon ceased we turned to the 
domestic trade. The argument offered for prohibiting the 
introduction of slaves from other states was to prevent 
the speculator from loading up the community with un- 
desirable slaves. As was the case in the latter half century 
of the existence of American slavery the slave was much 
more valuable on the rice and cotton plantation of Caro- 
lina than he was in Virginia. There would be a tendency 
then in the absence of any restr ictions for the state to in- 

*Suppressi'on of the Slave Trade, p. 168. 

tAnnual Message of Governor Alston, 1858. Dubois gives the fol- 
lowing reference on the case: U. S. Executive Documents, 35th Congress, 
2nd Session, pt. 2, No. 2, pt. 4, pp. 5, 14. 

§Dubois, Suppression of the Slave Trade, p. 176; Pamphlet: Ma- 
jority and Minority Reports, in Charleston Library. 



106 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

crease its slave population in a way second only in evil 
to that of foreign importation. 

But a more important reason is that referred to, that the 
professional speculators who would have the opportunity 
to go through the state buying up cheaply the unruly, 
dangerous, lazy slaves and to unload them at a good price 
in another. Here was a Pandora's box of trouble for the 
community, and a source of dread for the state. The 
grand jury of Spartanburg district, bordering on the state 
of North Carolina, had the following to say of the inter- 
state trafific in the fall of 1816:* 

"We present as a serious and most lamentable 
grievance the bringing in of slaves from other parts of 
the Union: the practice is an imposition on our citizens 
and dangerous to the safety of the State; we do trust 
that our Legislature will, without delay, take the 
case under their consideration." 

It is stated in its worst light in the message of Governor 
D. R. Williams in 1816. He said in part: 

"It is not possible that your deliberations on these 
subjects can be concluded before that remorseless, 
merciless traffic, which brings among us slaves of all 
descriptions from other states, which is a reproach to 
our morals and an outrage to our feelings, shall press 
on you for correction. It is time the course of cease- 
less cupidity, alike regardless of country and conse- 
quences, should be arrested, high time that our streets 
and highways should be freed from the crowds of 
suffering victims that are constantly dragged through 
them to minister to insatiable avarice. The lights 
of humanity, a wise policy, the prayers of the just, 
all require that the delightful avocations of domestic 
life should be no longer defiled by the presence of 
convicts and malefactors." 

The act of 1816t, to prevent the introduction of slaves 
from sister states for sale, was very drastic in its provisions. 
It provided that slaves unlawfully introduced might be 

*MS. records of Spartanburg county. 
tStatutes at Large, VII, 451. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 107 

seized and sold, one-half the proceeds going to the informer; 
the trader was to be fined $50 for each slave sold and for a 
second series of offenses to be declared guilty of a felony ; 
any person buying such slaves knowing them to be illegally 
introduced into the state was to be fined $400; the tax 
collector was authorized to require every slaveowner to 
make oath that he had not purchased any slave contrary 
to the law. But the law was not observed. The difficulty 
lay in the method of its enforcement. Governor Pickens, 
in his message of 1818, said: 

"It is believed that this law, which is thought so 
repugnant to the interests of many of our fellow citi- 
zens, is violated in many instances with impunity; 
as no one will incur the odium attached to the character 
of an informer." 

Another difficulty was the exceptions that many desired 
to have made to the law by special act to permit the im- 
portation of certain slaves. The legislative news letter to 
the (Charleston) City Gazette, printed on December 4, 
1817, has this utterance as to the number of petitions: 

"The number already petitioned for amount to 
735 and God knows how many more will be presented 
before the end of the session." 

In view of the frequent violations of the law Governor 
Pickens submitted to the wisdom of the legislators in his 
message of 1818 the question whether or not the act of 
1816 should be repealed. The act rescinding the former 
law was passed. The private correspondence to the 
Charleston Courier of Dec. 12, 1818, desciibes the debate 
in the lower house as "one of the most eloquent and ani- 
mated that has taken place on that floor for many years." 

The seamen act of 1835 has two sections limiting the 
bringing in of slaves as servants from the outside, if they 
had been north of the Potomac or in the West Indies or 
other points to the south of Carolina. This act was 
amended in 1847* so as to permit slaves to be introduced 
from Cuba. With these exceptions it seems that after 

♦Statutes at Large, XI, 449. Collins: Domestic Slave Trade of the 
Southern States, p. 115. 



108 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

1818 the bars were let down to permit unrestricted trade. 
Thus it will be seen that South Carolina assumed for the 
l^nefit of the large planters the responsibility for making 
the state an open market for the surplus slaves of other 
states. 



CHAPTER XI 

Stealing and Harboring of Slaves and 
Kidnapping of Free Negroes 

The recognition of the interests of the slaveholder cannot 
be better illustrated than by the rigorous enforcement of 
the severe penalty for stealing and carrying away slaves, 
often called "inveigling," which deprived the master of 
his property. It was regarded as one of the most heinous 
crimes that could be committed, even worse apparently 
than the murder of a slave. 

But neither the interest of the master nor the desire to 
protect the comfort of the slave was the only reason why 
the penalty was severe and the law rigorously enforced. 
Slave-stealing was dangerous in that it threatened the en- 
tire stability of the whole system and was subversive of 
the interests of society. The slave-stealer was the anar- 
chist of Southern serfdom. Suppose it had been allowed 
to become a common offense: property in slaves would have 
been insecure ; other property would have been endangered 
by the lawlessness of the depredators; lives of the whites 
would not have been secure, for it would have encouraged 
and made possible insurrection and general disorder which 
was the nightmare of the Southern white; the slave thief 
would have been in position, with the assistance of his 
captives, to carry out his plans of the highwayman with 
organized method. 

Add to this the ineffectiveness of any penalty short of 
execution and it will be clear how capital punishment came 
to be regarded as the proper one. A fine could have been 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 109 

recouped by another steal or two when a "Hkely" negro 
was worth $1,000, even if we suppose that he parted with 
his stolen property at half price. A prison sentence which 
sometimes may have been imposed in lieu of the death 
penalty frequently ended in an escape, owing to the des- 
perate character of the thieves and also to the fact that 
several of them often acted together and gave each other 
assistance to escape. However, it was not until 1754t 
that slave stealing had become sufficiently prevalent to 
demand enactment of the highest penalty. 

But the danger becomes more formidable when, as it 
appears there were, though rarely perhaps, organized bands 
of outlaws, who like highway robbers of earlier days, made 
this their means of earning a livelihood. The most 
notorious of these bands was one which was led by Murrel 
in the thirties and early forties and was brought to bay 
by the Tennessee authorities.* A news item in the Charles- 
ton Courier of September 9, 1846, § mentions the capture 
of a young white man at Cheraw who was suspected by 
his display of money of having assisted in the escape of 
four negroes from the community. When arrested he 
implicated another white man and a negro, the latter of 
whom was caught at Raleigh, North Carolina, and duly- 
executed. The white man was thought to be one of the 
original Murrel gang. The method used, as appears from 
the more or less embellished story of Murrel in the dis- 
closure to Stewart, was to approach a slave while at work; 
the slave, who perhaps betrayed a longing desire for some 
kind of change, was asked how he liked his master; if he 
showed an ill feeling toward his master he was invited to 

tStatutes at Large, VII, 426, sec. 1. 

*It is probable that Murrel had confederates who operated or made 
attempts in upper Carolina as will appear from the further narrative. 
A full and romantic account of the adventure of Murrel and of Stewart, 
who was the means of his final capture, occurs in the Southern Times and 
State Gazette of September and October, 1835. 

§See also records of Marlborough County for the cases against 
Weatherly and of his accomplices being brought from Sumter to testify 
against him. More than one unsuccessful effort to convict him was 
made. 



110 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

escape usually at night on a signal to a given rendezvous.* 
The slave's co-operation was secured i)y imposing upon 
his credulity with the story that he was being transported 
by a friend to a free state or at least that he would be placed 
in more favorable surroundings than he enjoyed at present. 
The negro, often easily deceived, did as was directed. 
After a sufficient distance had been reached — Arkansas 
was a favorite place for the Murrel gang — the slave was 
sold. The new master was likely to be no improvement 
over the former and the thief, who appeared to be a sort 
of savior in need to the now adventurous black, turned up 
again and, with the negro's assistance, the stolen black is 
whisked away to another distance and resold. 

These highwaymen were shifty enough to understand 
that an advertisement for a runaway slave gave to any 
white person the right to arrest and return such slave to 
his master or overseer as a captured runaway. Naturally 
the master or overseer, when he found that the slave was 
gone, advertised for him thinking most likely he had run 
away, as this was more or less common. Hence on being 
caught the thief could plead that it was in an effort to 
return the runaway that he was found in the slave's com- 
pany. It will be remembered that the slave was not com- 
petent to give evidence as to what had happened. Even 
if he "talked" it could be used only as a clue; it is hardly 
probable that the slave, who was conscious of the effect 
upon the master of his own co-operation to cheat the 
master cut of his services, could or would gi\ c a coherent 
account of what had passed since he was aware that it was 
not likely to better his case if a sound whipping was in 
store for him. 

We may here inquire as to the frequency of the crime of 
slave stealing and its punishment. The Charleston Courier 
of June 2, 1809, in a news item tells of the pardon of two 
persons convicted of slave stealing. Governor Drayton, 
in his annual message to the general assembly in November 
of the same year, mentioned the fact that there had been five 

*See also article by Pliillips in The South in ihe Building of the 
Nation, vol. IV, p. 230. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina HI 

convictions with the death penalty in each case for this 
crime during the year then coming to a close and that one 
prisoner was awaiting trial in Charleston at the time. 
He defended his record for pardons of slave stealers by 
referring to popular sentiment, a considerable part of which 
was against so severe a penalty.* He then proceeded to 
shift the responsibility for the criticism of the severity 
of the penalty upon the legislature by saying that it they 
did not see fit to change the law he desired to serve notice 
that there would hereafter be no executive interference 
with sentences of death imposed by the courts for this 
offense. No change was made in the penalty by law. 
Accordingly, in a proclamation of a reward of $200 by 
the governor in the following March for an overseer who 
had left a farm on the Waccamaw carrying some slaves 
with him, he added :t 

"And I do hereby earnestly require and strictly 
enjoin all officers of this state, civil and military, 
and all authorities of the same to be vigilant in arrest- 
ing, trying and bringing to justice and to due and 
lawful punishment all persons charged with negro 
stealing; which has of late increased to a degree, 
requiring such punishment as the laws of the state 
authorize; and which shall in proper cases be carried 
into full effect, so far as depends upon the authorities 
and powers with which I am invested." 
That the authorities were in earnest and that this policy 
of carrying the law into effect was continued appears from 
two instances. In a news item in The Times (Charleston) 
of February 25, 1813, is the notice of an execution at 
Barnwell for "horse and negro stealing;" the item reads: 

*The following verdict returned by the jury in the trial of a slave 
stealer in Spartanburg in 1808 would seem to bear out his statement 
that there was a general feeling that the penalty was unduly harsh. 
"We find the defendant guilty, but from principles of humanity we 
recommend him to mercy." The defendant was sentenced to be 
hanged notwithstanding the verdict. MS. records Spartanburg 
County. 

tThe Carolina Gazette, March 9, 1810. 



112 Control of Sluves in South Carolina 

"He was strongly guarded by the militia, both foot 
and horse, as it was rumored a rescue would be at- 
tempted, the sentence by many, being thought too 
severe — executive clemency having been strenuously 
withheld notwithstanding repeated strong applica- 
tions in his favor." 
The other instance is the resolution of the Charleston 
City Council of June 17, 1816.* providing for the purchase 
of space in the Charleston Courier for a month's publication 
in each issue of the act to prevent slave stealing. This 
was done apparently with a view to prevent anybody's 
acting through ignorance of the serious consequences. 

Instances of executions for slave stealing could be mul- 
tiplied. Chapman, in the Annals of Newberry, f makes 
mention of the escape from the Newberry jail of a white 
man charged with negro stealing, his capture, trial, con- 
viction and commutation of the death sentence after he 
had been taken to the scaffold. Or, of another at Darling- 
ton in 1846 who paid the penalty. But one of the most 
notorious cases occurred in Sumter district, where three 
slaves were stolen from Willie Spain. The thief was 
caught and a true bill was found against him at the April 
term of court in 1838. After an unsuccessful effort to 
escape he finally succeeded in "breaking jail" on July 
30, 1838. An unusually long "presentment" of the sheriff 
by the grand jury followed at the next term of court with 
a very vigorous criticism of that officer on account of the 
escape. The sheriff was ordered to "show cause" for non- 
performance of duty, which he did presumably with satis- 
faction for no fine or other penalty was imposed on the sheriff 
in so far as the records show. The criminal was not 
finally arraigned until 1844 when he was convicted and 
sentenced to be hanged. All of the papers in the clerk 
of court's office in the case are preserved, and it is probable 
that due care was observed for the safekeeping of the pris- 
oner, who it may be inferred was at last executed since 
nothing to the contrary appears. 

* Charleston Courier, June 24, 1816. 
tPage 500. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 113 

An interesting case of slave stealing which affected South 
Carolina occurred in Virginia in 1839. It serves to show 
the attitude of the South toward the North when some- 
times slaves were assisted to escape or stolen outright. 
Three negro sailors* aided a slave to escape to New York. 
Requisition for the return of the offenders who were re- 
garded as fugitives from justice was made upon the gov- 
ernor of New York, by the Governor of Virginia. The 
requisition was dishonored, though the escaped slave was 
recovered,! on the ground that slave stealing as a crime 
had no legal existence in the state of New York. This 
sounded the alarm to the South. South Carolina passed 
a rigid inspection act in 1841§ against all vessels clearing 
for New York — the inspector's fee being $10 to be collected 
from the ship owner — to make sure that no slaves were 
being concealed on board and were being carried away. 
The captain of such vessel was also to enter into bond of 
$1,000 to guarantee the pay for the loss of any slave he 
might be carrying away clandestinely; he was also required 
to take oath to the same effect. The governor was given 
the power to suspend the operation of this act discrimi- 
nating against New York provided he were officially in- 
formed that the requisition of the governor of Virginia 
for the return of the fugitives had been complied with. 
Meantime the New York legislature had passed another 
still more stringent actt to prevent the return of runaways, 
providing a fine of $500 under the charge of kidnapping 
to carry away any former slave from the state without a 
hearing. To secure a hearing the person must enter into 
a bond of $1,000 given by a citizen of the state of New York 
to secure the costs. In 1842 the South Carolina legis- 

*Ballagh: History of Slavery in Virginia, extra volume XXIV, 
J. H. U. Studies, p. 76. Professor Ballagh says "two" slaves but the 
Act of 1841, Statutes at Large, XI, 166, sec. 12, refers to "three." 

tSchouler: History of the United States, IV, 342; McMaster, 
History of the People of U. S., VII, 249. 

§Statutes at Large, XI, 163. 

jReport of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the South Caro- 
lina Legislature, printed in The Southern Chronicle, Dec. 8, 1841, 



114 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

lalLire passed an act supplementary to the one of 1841. f 
It seems, however, that South Carolina had to suffer from 
its own policy, for the inspection which appears to have 
been well enforced worked a hardship on trade within the 
state. Merchants of Charleston and Georgetown com- 
plained of the hindrance to business which it caused. 
But the only action taken on their petitions to the legis- 
lature was to refer them to a committee.* The committee's 
report shows that the fees annually collected until 1847 
amounted to $1,500, but for the first eleven months of 
1847 they had run up to $1,890.§ 

Closely akin to the stealing of slaves was the "harboring" 
of slaves. The presumption in harboring seems to have 
been that it was an effort to deprive the master temporarily 
of the services of his slave. Then harboring was somewhat 
like assisting him to runaway or becoming an accessory 
before the fact of slave stealing. In some instances the 
motive may have been to aid a slave who was thought to 
have been abused by his master. Harboring under the 
act of 1821i was punishable with a maximum fine of $1,000 
and imprisonment at the discretion of the court; or the 
person injured could bring a civil action for damages. 

The Sumter county records show three convictions in 
1827 for harboring, one person so charged being sentenced 
to four months' imprisonment and the other two to a fine 
oi $1,000 and one year's imprisonment each. Five other 
persons similarly charged whose names appear on the re- 
cords are found "not guilty," "no bill," or were discharged. 
The available Darlington criminal records show nine 
indictments for harboring, some of which reach the "true 
bill" stage, but only one is recorded as having been con- 
victed and in this case no penalty is attached. The 

fStatutes at Large, XI, 237. 

*The Daily Telegraph, Dec. 15, 1847. 

iCalhoun presented a memorial in the United States Senate from the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the South Carolina Legislature and 
made a few remarks with reference to the affair on February 7, 1842. 
Niies Register, LXI, 372. 

^Statutes at Large, VII, 460. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 115 

Williamsburg county records show only one such case, 
and the defendant was acquitted. The Newberry county 
"index" shows four such bills entered, two of which were 
returned after trial "guilty." The other two were re- 
turned "no bill" by the grand jury. Kershaw district 
has only one recorded instance and the person charged is 
found guilty but no sentence appears. Marlborough 
district has only two recorded cases, one of which was 
nolle pressed and the other was returned "no bill." Two 
cases only were brought in Laurens and both were "struck 
off." Union district had six cases of harboring, in only 
two of which convictions were secured, though no sentence 
appears. In Greenville district six cases are on record, 
in only two of which convictions are reached. One case 
was against a white man and woman, the sentence being 
a fine of $5 and one month's imprisonment. In another 
the penalty was $200 and six months' imprisonment. 
Spartanburg also records an even six cases, in only one of 
which conviction was reached, the sentence being one 
month's imprisonment. 

It sometimes happened also that free negroes fell into 
the hands of these robbers and were carried some distance 
and sold as slaves. Whatever other disadvantages free 
negroes labored under, the community would look upon 
this as a most pernicious evil although the self interest of 
the slaveowner was not present to protect him. Most 
of the slave laws were based primarily upon the pecuniary 
interest of the slaveowner. Apparently there was no law 
against the abduction of free negroes until 1837. f The 
law passed in that year provided for a fine of $1,000 and 
twelve months' imprisonment as a minimum penalty for 
any person assisting in such an abduction; if the theft 
succeeded the offender was to receive an additional punish- 
ment of thirty-nine lashes. The penalty was light in com- 
parison with that for stealing a slave — as no white person's 
property interest was at stake. Per se stealing a free 
negro child, by which act it was deprived of freedom and 
reduced to slavery, would seem far more reprehensible 

jStatutes at Large, VI, 574, 



116 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

than carrying off a slave, by which the latter was merely 
transferred from one owner to another even though the 
new master was not so humane as the former. 

ColHns, in his monograph on the Domestic Slave 
Trade, t gives it as his opinion that this kidnapping of free 
negroes, especially children, was frequent. The lateness 
of acts which prohibited it appearing on the statute books 
cannot be taken as evidence that the cases were rare. 
For the moral sense of the community does not appear to 
have been especially acute on this subject, as we shall 
see later that there was a serious agitation that all free 
negroes should be enslaved. Still it is true that unless the 
free negro's guardian or some white person interested 
himself in the case, the colored freeman was left legally 
and practically without protection. Just how frequently 
such kidnappings occurred it would be difficult to say. 
The court records of course cannot be taken as a final 
estimate for in the records of the county clerk of court's 
offices examined by the writer only one such case occurs, 
namely, in Darlington district in 1846 — and it was "struck 
off." As evidence that kidnapping had been common 
before the law of 1837 was passed may be mentioned the 
following scheme of unscrupulous persons for reducing 
to slavery and selling free negroes which is referred to by 
the grand jury of Charleston in 1816*: 

"We present as a grievance the show of lawful 
proceedings, which has been fictitiously given by 
some persons to the horrible practice of inducing free 
negroes in jail or in debt to bind themselves for a trifl- 
ing sum for several years, and by a transfer in the in- 
denture and a chain of inhuman proceedings cause them 
to be sold into the interior or out of the state, by 
which means they may be deprived of their freedom." 
In the Columbia Free Press and Hive of April 9, 1831, 
the case of such kidnapping of a free negro child is men- 
tioned in a news item, and inquiry for information as to it 
is made though the theft occurred across the line in North 

tChapter V. 

*Quotcd by Mr. Jervcy, "Hayne and His Times," p. 68. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 117 

Carolina at Chapel Hill. Another instance is mentioned 
in the Reports of the Court of Appeals of 1841 f of a free 
negro who had been brought from Florida and confined 
in the work-house at Charleston for sale. He communi- 
cated the facts of his freedom and the name and address 
of his guardian to the warden, who became sufficiently 
interested to investigate and found the statement true. 
The captor doubtless meantime having had his suspicions 
aroused, had decided that the atmosphere of that com- 
munity was unwholesome. 



CHAPTER XII 

Runaway Slaves 

If one glances through a Southern newspaper published 
before 1860 the first thing that the eye is likely to fall 
upon will be an advertisement of some ten lines or more 
at the left-hand corner of which there is a rude cut of a 
negro in flight, carrying in one hand or thrown over his 
back on a stick a bag representing food for a few days. 
At the top of the notice in bold face type are the words: 
$10 reward; sometimes $50 or even $100. The following 
is a good specimen taken at random from the Southern 
Times and State Gazette of July 10, 1835: 

"TEN DOLLARS REWARD 
"Will be paid for the apprehension and confinement 
in any jail in this state of a negro man, named Dublin, 

who absconded from the plantation of Dr. , 

in Lexington district on the 30th of June. 

"Said Dublin is about forty- five years of age, five 
feet four inches high, spare made, with his under 
jaw apparently too long for the upper one. He 
has a very dark complexion and speaks somewhat 
broken as he is an African by birth." 

fl McMulIan (Law), 135: Wesne vs. Giradeau. 



118 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

The number of notices appearing in any issue varies from 
only two or three to a score. The early Charleston papers 
of the eighteenth century often have column after column 
of them, showing that escapes were common in the earlier 
times; while the Abbeville papers of the forties and fifties 
have almost none. 

Among these notices of runaways are other advertise- 
ments of captures, though they are fewer, for often when 
captured if the owner were known the slave was returned 
directly. Some enterprising newspapers used a small cut 
representing a negro humbled by capture with his hands 
clasped almost between his knees and the hand of a burly 
white man resting on his shoulder. This cut was to distin- 
guish the notice of a capture from that of a runaway. 
The following from the Camden Journal of January 6, 
1827, is typical: 

"COMMITTED 

"To Lancaster jail a negro man who calls his name 

Jack, of a dark complexion, about five feet eight or 

ten inches high (marked with the whip upon his back), 

about fifty years of age: says that he belongs to Capt. 

, of Oglethorpe county, Georgia. The owner 

is requested to prove property, pay charges and take 
him away. 

S. L. D." 

A whipping for laziness or misconduct, or merely the 
fear of a whipping, was often sufficient to cause a slave 
"to take to the woods." The master's treatment and the 
slave's temperament were the factors determining the 
possibility and frequency of a slave's running away. Slaves 
were, it is quite true, sometimes persuaded by unscrupulous 
whites or free negroes or other runaways "to run." But 
when the conditions by which the slaves were surrounded 
were good and the plantation discipline firm though humane, 
and the slave not of a roving disposition, outside influences 
were rarely effective. There were others of a nervous 
or a dare-devil disposition who on slightest provocation 
prayed "Lord, foot help body,"§ and were not seen any more 

IPollard: Black Diamonds, p. 105. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 119 

for days or months, and sometimes never again. A master 
who was weakly lenient — there were few — was, so to 
speak, held up by a threat implied in the slave's demeanor 
that he would run away. These chronic runaways were 
often "sold running" or "sold in the woods," which means 
that while the negro was away on an escapade the master 
transferred his title to the slave to another at a very much 
reduced price, the purchaser taking the chances of recover- 
ing the fugitive. A slaveowner gave notice in the 
South Carolina Gazette of June 28, 1835. that some of his 
negroes "are constantly running away" and offered a 
standing reward for the capture and return of these at 
any time. 

One may ask what the purpose of the slave was in running 
away; did he have any objective point to reach, or was it 
merely an aimless temporary escape? It was often both. 
Sometimes he would leave home temporarily for only a 
few days, and soon hunger, exposure and loneliness would 
drive him back to the master's quarters. A whipping 
often awaited him, but if he returned of his own accord 
and it was not the repetition of a similar former offense, 
in order to encourage his further faithfulness, a wise master 
dealt leniently with him. If he was captured and returned 
he usually received a severe whipping.* 

The mention of the captor calls for some account of the 
laws dealing with runaways. The provisions of the law 
of 1712 on the subject reveals the most striking stupidity 
perhaps to be found in slave legislation. Graded tortures 
for the runaway varying in severity from slitting the nose 
to cutting off one foot were provided for a first, a second 
and further repetition of the offense. It was made the 
duty of the master by law to inflict such punishments. 
But there is but little reason for believing that any such 
except the milder were ever inflicted as punishments; 
for if such mutilation did not positively injure the slave 
so as to make him less useful as a servant, it would at least 
become a sign of his running proclivities in case he was ever 
offered for sale. These m utilations, though abolished or 

*S€e letter of Calhoun, Amer. Hist. Ass'n, 1899, vol. II, p. 301. 



120 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

superseded by the act of 1740, were sometimes held up by 
the patrol as a terror to the slave; and there is related in a 
decision of the Constitutional Court, f in a suit over a slave 
in 1823 as a part of the facts, that the slave had had his 
ears cropped for burglary. About the only provision of 
the act of 1 740 and of subsequent acts * relating to runaways 
made it the duty of any person capturing a runaway slave 
to return him to the master immediately or to turn him 
over to the sheriff within four days. It was not lawful for 
the captor to retain a runaway slave in his custody, for this 
would naturally give him opportunity secretly to use the 
slave's services until the master should find him. The 
sheriff upon receiving a runaway gave notice in the news- 
papers. The owner upon claiming the slave was required 
to pay the necessary expenses of his capture and confine- 
ment. If the slave should be unclaimed after eighteen 
months he was to be sold* at public outcry, to defray the 
expenses of his keep, or "poundage" as it was sometimes 
called, any balance over expenses to go into the public 
funds. 

There were in some communities persons who made it 
their business to hunt runaway slaves for their owners for a 
fee. The Rising Sun, of Newberry, on July 28, 1858, 
carried an advertisement placed by two men who promised 
that at any time they would respond to a call for their 
services for $5 per diem "whether successful or not." "All 
captures $10 without resistance, where there is resistance, 
$10 to $50; have dogs and are always ready to attend to 
business." The autobiography of Stroyer, a negro, says 
his master kept a man on the plantation to hunt runaway 
negroes with dogs. 

Often, particularly in the lower part of the state, several 
runaway slaves would band together and form a sort of 
runaway camp in the swamps where they lived in hiding, 
maintaining themselves by theft from the neighboring 
fields and fowl houses. They carried with them rude utensils 

tl Harper (Law), 25: Owens vs. Ford. 

*1740, Statutes at Large, VII, 405, sec. 25; 1751, Statutesat Large, 
VII, 420, sec. 17; 1788, Statutes at Large, VII, 430. 



Control of Skves in South Carolina 121 

with which they cooked their meals over the fire. The 
following news item from the Marion Star of June 18, 
1861, will give a fair picture of such a camp: 

"Runaways — Last Tuesday a party of gentlemen 
from this place went in search of runaways who were 
thought to be in a swamp two miles from here. A 
trail was discovered which, winding about much, 
conducted the party to a knoll in the swamp on which 
corn, squashes, and peas were growing and a camp 
had been burnt. Continuing the search, another 
patch of corn, etc., was found and a camp from which 
several negroes fled, leaving two small negro children, 
each about a year old. . . . There were several 
guns fired at the negroes who fled from the camp but 
none proved effectual. The camp seemed well pro- 
vided with meal, cooking utensils, blankets, etc. 
The party returned, having taken the two children, 
twelve guns and one axe. . . . Means should 
immediately be taken for the capture of these run- 
aways, as they are probably lurking about this place."* 
One such gang of outlaws was serious enough in 1816 
to cause the governor to order a special foray by the militia. 
He gives the following account of it in his messaage to the 
legislature in that year: 

"A few runaway negroes, concealing themselves in 
the swamps and marshes contiguous to Combahee 
and Ashepoo rivers, not having been interrupted 
in their petty plunderings for a long time, formed the 
nucleus around which the ill-disposed and audacious 
near them gathered until at length their robberies 
became too serious to be suffered with impunity. 
Attempts were then made to disperse them, which, 
either from insufficiency of numbers or bad arrange- 
ment, served by their failure only to encourage a 
wanton destruction of property. Their force now 
became alarming, not less from its numbers than from 

♦Another similar description of a runaway camp is printed in U. B. 
Phillips' Ed. Plantation and Frontier, in Documentary History of 
American Industrial Society, vol. II, p. 91. 



122 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

the arms and amunition with which it was supplied. 
The peculiar situation of that part of our coast 
rendered access to them difficult, while the numerous 
creeks and water courses through the marshes and 
around the islands furnished them easy opportunities 
in plunder, not only ihe planters in open day, but the 
inland coasting trade also, without leaving a trace 
of their movements by which they could be pursued. 
There was but one more stage to a state of things 
altogether intolerable, to prevent which I felt it my 
duty to use the public force and public money. I, 
therefore, ordered Col. Wm. Youngblood to take the 
necessary measures for suppressing them, and author- 
ized him to incur the necessary expenses of such an 
expedition. This was immediately executed. By a 
judicious employment of the militia under his com- 
mand he either captured or destroyed the whole 
body." 

This will show that the runaway was a menace to the 
peace of the community and affected not only the master 
but other persons who might be the xictims of his depre- 
dation. It was with that feeling that more than a hundred 
years earlier the following resolution was passed by the 
colonial assembly:* 

"The House being informed that there are several 
negroes run away from their masters, and keep out, 
armed, and robbing and plundering houses and plan- 
tations, and putting the inhabitants of this Province 
in great fear and terror. Resolved by this House that 
the Governor be addressed to take effectual care to 
apprehend, take and suppress the said runaways and 
assure his Honor that this House will, at all times, 
be ready to concur with the Governor and Council 
in defraying the expenses of soe good and neces- 
sary a designe." 

*Quoted in a pamphlet: Refutation of Calumnies against the South- 
ern and Western States, by a Carolinian. Date of resolution is given 
as June 11, 1711. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 123 

With a similar feeling the Charleston grand jury, in its 
presentment in 1776, recommended,! 

"that all fugitives after so many months' absence 

should be deemed outlaws, and subject to death 

without sentence or expense to the province." 

The following quotation from the Senate Journal of Dec. 

6, 1816,* will illustrate that at a later date the runaway 

was regarded and treated very much as an outlaw: 

"The report on the petition of Edward Brailsford, 
praying compensation for the loss of two runaway 
negroe slaves who were killed by a patrole, viz: 
That they have had the same under consideration 
and are of the opinion that the prayer thereof ought 
not to be granted, the more especially as there is no 
provision made by law for the payment of such losses." 
Another evil from which the South suffered was the 
enticing away by abolitionists through the "underground 
railroad." South Carolina suffered less in this respect 
than the border states. Conditions similar, however, 
in their effects to this were when the settlement in Florida, 
which until 1819 was Spanish, continued to seduce the 
Carolina slaves from their loyalty. It is mentioned here, 
for while probably only a comparatively few were lost to the 
state in that way, still it was a problem in which the 
Southern slaveowner was interested. Not only was the 
abolitionist interested but the slave thief had greater 
opportunity to ply his business. DeBow's ReviewW estimat- 
ed that the South lost 1,540 slaves every year in this way. 
The Rising Sun (Newberry) on January 18, 1860, quoted 
another authority to the effect that there were probably 
45,000 slaves in Canada at that time. Siebert§ estimates 
that between 1830 and 1860 Ohio aided in the escape of 
"not less than" 40,000 slaves, more than one thousand per 
annum; and that during the last quarter century of the 
existence of slavery in the South Philadelphia aided in 
9,000 escapes. 

^South Carolina Gazette, June 2, 1776. 

*MS. copies in S. C. Historical Commission's Archives, p. 101. 

||IX, 570. 

iAmerican Historical Review, I, 455, 



124 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

CHAPTER XIII 
The Seamen Acts 

There was, as has just been intimated, a constant dis- 
trust of the negroes and particularly any decided increase 
of the free negro population by immigration. This was 
not without reason, for a free negro could easily enter from 
the outside and conduct insurrectionary movements as 
was actually the case in the Vesey plot. 

The people of the state and the authorities found it 
comparatively easy to deal with the casual free negro im- 
migrant. But after the disclosure of the Vesey plot it 
was deemed unsafe to allow the temporary presence of free 
negroes who might happen to be in the crews of trading 
vessels. Their fears were founded on altogether possible 
conditions; such a colored seaman might distribute in- 
cendiary literature or by the air of superiority to which 
the race is prone cause dissatisfaction among the slave 
population. But the means for preventing this undesirable 
contact was not the happiest of expedients — it was drastic 
to say the least, though it was the method of other states 
as well as South Carolina.* This law of 1822t was none 
other than an order to the sheriff to arrest and closely 
confine any free negroes who happened to be in the crew 
of any trading vessel coming into port and retain them in 
custody until the vessel was ready to leave. The captain 
was held responsible under heavy penalties for the due 
removal of such negroes when the vessel should leave, 
and was held also financially liable for the jail fees incurred 
by their detention. The act of 1835§ is more elaborate 
but is substantially the same with the exception that a 
bond of $1,000 is required of the captain of a vessel having 
free negroes in its crew to guarantee their due removal, and 
in case the captain refuses to enter into such bond he must 

*Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia are mentioned in Report 80, 
27th Cong., 3rd Sess., 1843. 
tStatutes at Large, VII, 46 L 
jStatutes at Large, VII, 470. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 125 

remove his vessel out one hundred and fifty yards from the 
wharf and leave port within twenty-four hours. 

It was inevitable that these laws, now known as the sea- 
men acts, would sooner or later bring the state into con- 
flict either with other states of the union, when the control 
of interstate traffic by the federal government was not so 
common or well understood as it is today; or it would bring 
the state, or rather the federal government, into inter- 
national difficulties with foreign governments. The state 
had a clear and from its point of view not unintelligent 
policy of police precaution. But it was not reasonable 
to expect other nations or even other sections of the union 
to see it in that light. For them to see or hear of a member 
of their crew, probably a citizen or subject, led off to jail 
with not even the semblance of a charge against him — 
the only answer apparently being "he is black"— was 
bound to call forth protest. To South Carolina it meant 
a police regulation; to the outside trader it meant unwar- 
ranted restriction of trade privileges. 

Apparently the first month of the new year, 1823, saw 
wholesale arrests of such seamen at the ports, in one case 
not a single person was left to guard the vessel in the ab- 
sence of the captain, t Among the number was a colored 
seaman, Peter Petrie, one of the crew of the British liner, 
Marmion. Petrie was a subject of His Majesty the King 
of England. The British consul at Charleston made formal 
protest and reported the facts to his home government, 
which in turn made complaint to the government at Wash- 
ington. President Monroe referred the matter to Attorney- 
General Wirt for an opinion. This opinion, rendered May 
8, 1824, took the ground that South Carolina had no such 
power to regulate and interfere with foreign and inter- 
state commerce, this power resting solely with the federal 
government; in addition to this the United States had a 
trade agreement with Great Britain which did not stipu- 
late that any such restrictions should be placed. This 
opinion, together with all the papers, w as transmitted to 

tStatement made by Federal Judge Johnson in the case ex parte 
Elkison (referred to below). Rept. 80. p. 27, 27th Cong., 3rd Sess. 



126 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

Governor Wilson of South Carolina. The latter submitted 
them in the fall to the legislature with a message uphold- 
ing the rights of the state to pass such regulations for its 
protection from a class of persons whovSe condition is 
dangerous to its well being, as it would have to protect 
itself against infectious disease. The state senate and 
house of representatives each passed a different set of 
resolutions, the house having laid the senate resolutions 
on the table, upholding the state's policy, while those of the 
latter pointed out that the law is in no sense a commercial 
regulation but a police measure and could not be repealed. 
In the words of a newspaper correspondent,* "the whole 
matter rests precisely in the state where it was before it 
had been brought to the view of the legislature." f 

Apparently at about the same time another line of action 
was taken up by the British government, namely to go 
into the federal courts to test the validity of the South 
Carolina laws on the subject. At first Judge Johnson 
requested that the case be taken to the state courts be- 
lieving that they would correct the evil complained of. 
Whether or not this was done, it was later entered in the 
Federal District Court as "Ex parte Henry Elkison, a 
subject of His Brittanic Majesty, vs. Francis Delisieseline, 
sheriff of Charleston District," and a decision was rendered 
in August 7, 1823. Judge Johnson, a native of Charleston, 
says of the law in his decision: 

"Upon the whole I am decidedly of opinion that the 
3rd section of the State Act now under consideration 
is unconstitutional and void and that every arrest 
made under it subjects the parties making it to an 
action of trespass." 
His opinion, however, was that habeas corpus rested with 
the state to be granted and that in the absence of positive 

*Charleston Courier, Dec. 22, 1824. 

tFor this account recourse was had to the Senate document referred 
to, and newspapers, chiefly the Charleston City Gazette, which for Dec. 7, 
1824, has all the documents referred to. All the legislative proceedings 
and debates are reported fully in the Gazette and Charleston Courier 
and other local papers. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 127 

congressional enactment he as federal judge was powerless 
to render relief.* 

Again, in 1830, Daniel Fraser, a colored subject of the 
King of England was arrested by the sheriff of Charleston 
under the provisions of this act. The British consul 
wrote a note to the sheriff couched in considerate language, 
stating that he appreciated the difficulties under which 
the people of the state labored, but added that it had hap- 
pened heretofore that British subjects had been released 
on the representations of the home government. It is 
probable that the law was not strictly enforced against 
seamen on foreign vessels, f The sheriff referred the letter 
to the attorney-general of the state, who replied that as 
much as he regretted such a state of affairs he was aware 
that not only was it the law but that it was the settled 
policy of the state that the law should be enforced, stating 
his reasons as follows: 

"But as a member of the Legislature, I know that 
several efforts have been made within a few years past 
to relax the policy of these Iciws and that they all 
have decidedly failed. It is not more than a fort- 
night since I had myself the honor of reporting a 
bill from the Charleston delegation to relieve the 
commerce of Charleston of some of the embarrass- 
ments caused by these acts; but this bill too, it seems, 
has failed even in the House of Representatives — 
that branch of the Legislature hitherto most favorable 
to the amendments proposed." 
Fraser was soon afterwards released on condition that his 
vessel should move out from all communication with the 
land.§ 



*Ti-anscript of the Elkison case and other facts concerning it are to 
be found in Rept. No. 80, p. 27, Repts. of Committees 27th Cong., 
3rd Sess. Judge O'Neall, in his Bench and Bar of South Carolina,' 
vol. I, p. 76, in the sketch of Judge Johnson, speaks of Judge Johnson's 
view as an unpopular one. He calls it the "Elkington case." 

tMinority Rept. Com. No. 80, 27th Cong., 3rd Sess. 

§The letters passed and all facts of the Fraser incident are to be 
found in Rept. 80, Repts. Corns. 27th Cong., 3rd Sess. 



128 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

Another case occurred in 1843. A British free negro, 
Jim Jones, was arrested and imprisoned by the Charleston 
sheriff. Because he was ordered to sweep the lower floor 
of the jail he cursed the jailer villainously in the presence 
of the other colored prisoners. Governor Hammond, in 
his message No. 3, calls attention to the undesirabil- 
ity of confining negro seamen with other prisoners and 
reconmiended that the former be prohibited by law 
from entering the city beyond limits to be fixed by the 
municipal authorities. This he pointed out would obviate 
the objection of foreign powers to the imprisonment of 
parts of the crews of their vessels and still carry into effect 
the purpose of the former police regulations. A bill em- 
bodying the governor's recommendation passed the house 
of representatives by a vote of 68 to 32, — the vote of the 
Charleston delegation being divided 8 for and 7 against 
any change. It was lost in the senate by a vote of 27 
to 14.* 

It appears that the British consul had in 1850 made 
formal protest to the legislature against the vigorous 
enforcement of the act discriminating against subjects of 
color of the English king and that a joint committee of 
both houses to whom the matter was referred recommended 
that no change be made.f 

Two more cases for British complaint arose in 1852. 
Manuel Pereira, a negro, was taken from a British vessel 
that had been driven into port by storm on March 24; 
again, on June 9, Reuben Roberts, a negro, in the crew of a 
Clyde liner, was arrested. The British go\ernment brought 
on legal action praying the right of habeas corpus for 
Pereira in the state court, but the writ was refused by 
Judge Withers. § In behalf of Roberts a suit for damages 
in the amount of $4,000 against the sheriff was brought in 

*Charleslon Courier, Dec. 18, 19, 1843. The governor's message No. 
3 of that year is the source of the facts of this incident. 

tGovernor's annual message 1852. 

jAccount "Manuel Pereira" by F. C. Adams. London. No date of 
publication appears. In this quasi-fictitious story Pereira is made to 
be a half Spaniard. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 129 

the federal court alleging "assault and false imprisonment."* 
These suits seem to have been friendly and were brought by 
the consul at the direction of his home government. f 
The plaintiff relied upon treaties with the United States 
to support his complaint. The judge of the Federal 
District Court directed a verdict to be entered in favor 
of the sheriff. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court 
of the United States,§ but was afterwards abandoned 
by the British government, the costs being assumed by 
the plaintifT.j 

The other source of protest against these laws was 
Massachusetts. Among those who had fallen under their 
enforcement were free colored persons recognized as citi- 
zens of that state. In 1842 one hundred and fifty-five 
merchants interested in Southern trade sent a petition to 
congress praying for some relief from the hampering of 
their business by these laws. 1 1 The memorial was referred 
to the Committee on Commerce in the House of Repre- 
sentatives. This committee, on January 20, 1843, brought 
in a majority and minority report accompanied by all the 
papers accumulated in the Department of State relative 
to the international notes passed between the United 
States government and the English government already 
referred to.** The majority report, following the lines 
of Attorney-General Wirt's reasoning in 1823, expressed 
the belief that the action of South Carolina in enacting 
and enforcing such a law was not lawful, but declared its 
belief that Congress had no preventive power in the case, 
adding that the federal courts probably do have such 
power, ft 

*Gov. Means' annual message, 1852. 
Charleston Mercury, April 13, 1853. 
^Charleston Mercury, April 22, 1853. 
^Governor's message, 1853. 

||A memorial had been sent to the House of Representatives in Con- 
gress in 1823, Niles Register, XXIV, 31. 

**Rept. Corns. No. 80, 27th Cong., 3rd Sess. 

ttContrast with Judge Johnson's opinion in 1823, that the court ha^d 
no such power in the absence of specific enactment. 



130 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

A minority report was made in which it was recited that 
the cause of such an act in South CaroHna was the Vesey 
plot and that in other states similar danger and the in- 
cendiary activity of the abolitionists at the North had 
caused the enactment of similar laws ; it is denied that citi- 
zenship in Massachusetts confers citizenship in any and 
every other state. If the status of the person is determined 
by his domicile why, it is asked, does Massacusetts refuse 
to recognize a negro from South Carolina as a slave since 
that is his status there. The right of police laws to be 
enacted by each state to suit its own needs was inalienable — 
quarantine laws being used as an illustration. The mi- 
nority report was accompanied by an opinion of Attorney- 
General Berrien rendered in 1831 on the subject. f The 
grounds of this opinion was substantially the basis of the 
minority report, the illustration of that of domicile was 
that of England instead of Massachusetts; the quarantine 
laws are also used an an illustration. 

Massachusetts apparently was not satisfied with letting 
matters rest with this, and in 1843 the legislature of that 
state authorized the governor to appoint a representative 
of the state at Charleston* to secure names and information 
concerning such negroes of that state as had been imprisoned 
but not charged with crime, and to bring one or more suits 
to test the validity of these laws. Some difficulty was 
encountered in securing any person either a resident of 
Charleston or one at home to undertake the mission. 
Finally the venerable Samuel Hoar, of more than three 
score, ventured upon the delicate task. He arrived in 
Charleston on November 28, 1844, while the South Caro- 
lina legislature was in session. He respectfully wrote 
Governor Hammond apprising him of the purpose of his 
mission. The latter referred the communication to the 
Carolina law-making body then in session with an ex- 
planation in a special message. On December 5, the House 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom the message and 

tin interpretation of just what case is not apparent, but probably 
it was the English Fraser case of 1830. 
*Also at New Orleans. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 131 

letter had been referred, made its report declaring this 
action to be with the avowed purpose of interfering with 
the institutions of the state and disturbing her peace. It 
directed the governor to use what means were necessary 
for the immediate removal of Agent Hoar from the state 
and that these resolutions — passed with only one dissertt- 
ing vote — be laid before the governor of Massachusetts. 
But this official action was unnecessary, for Charleston 
was already dealing with the situation in its own summary 
way. Excitement in the city was high. The sheriff, 
those interested in the peace of the city and friends of 
Mr. Hoar, called upon him urging him to withdraw, repre- 
senting to him the personal danger he incurred by delay. 
He was loath to leave without in some measure attempting 
to fulfill his mission. The apparent risk grew more visible 
until fairly by pressure he was shown to a waiting carriage 
and was soon aboard a boat leaving the harbor. Thus 
the unpleasant incident was closed.* 

"Stand-pat" is a phrase that can aptly be applied to 
South Carolina slave legislation. The natural conserva- 
tism of the people and the sensitiveness of the slaveholding 
aristocracy to any attack on the institution of slavery, 
together with a general hesitancy of everybody to fly to 
dangers they might not know of, kept these laws on the 
statute books until 1865. In 1855 Governor Adams, in 
liis message to the legislature, earnestly reconnnended the 
abolition of these laws, adding that the conditions under 
which they had been enacted had materially changed and 
the supremacy of the state in its police control had been 
fully vindicated. The only possible service they could 
render at this time was to call down upon the state further 
ill will. The Charleston Mercury of November 30, 1855, 
in an editorial, agreed heartily with the governor. On the 
other hand "A Carolina Planter" takes issue with this view 
in the Charleston Courier of December 8, 1855. The 
Mercury within a few days comes back with this retort: 

*Messages of the governors of S. C. and of Mass. and Hoar's account 
in his report to the Legislature of Mass., reprinted in the Old South 
Leaflets, No. 140. Also Niles Register, vol. 27, pp. 261-263; vol. 67, pp, 
315-317. 



132 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

"We presume that if a count were made it would be 

found that every opponent of the change is a country 

planter or a country resident. The city does not 

fear the consequences of a change. It is our country 

friends that take the trouble to be frightened for our 

sake." 

It is not probable, however, that the above deliverance 

as to the supporters of the law could have been made in 

the early years of its enforcement. Robert Y. Hayne, in 

a letter* to a friend in 1824, has this to say of the seamen 

acts which it will be interesting to quote: 

"The proceedings of our Legislature on the free 
negro question are certainly not very acceptable 
here and I think it is very much to be regretted that 
a tone of at least more moderation has not accom- 
panied whatever measures were deemed necessary 
on the present occasion. South Carolina, I assure you, 
has a character to sustain and her own dignity re- 
quires that no intemperate expression, no threats 
of forcible resistance to the national government 
should ever be resorted to." 
Indeed it is not quite clear what class it was that moved 
the enactment and enforcement of the law. Judge John- 
son, before referred to in this connection, said in a private 
letter to Secretary Adamson July 3, 1824, f that there existed 
a "South Carolina Association" that pressed for the enact- 
ment of these laws and was providing for their enforcement. 
In his opinion in the Elkison case he says:§ 

"Certain, however, it is that from that time [i. e., 
the time of the arrests of Jan., 1823] the prosecutions 
under this act were discontinued until lately revived 
by a voluntary association of gentlemen who have or- 
ganized themselves into a society to see the laws 

carried into effect. . . It is due to the State 

, 

*Letters from Washington to C. C. Pinckney, Jr., Dec. 21, 1824, 
reprinted in full in Jcrvcy: Hayne and His Time, p. 181. 

fPrinted along with the papers in Reports of Committees, 80, 27th 
Congress, 3rd Session. 

iRepts. Corns., 80, ^7th Cong., 3rd Sess. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 133 

officers to remark that from the time that they ha\'e 

understood that this law has been complained of on 

the ground of its unconstitutionality and injurious 

effects upon our commerce and foreign relations 

they have shown every disposition to let it sleep."* 

He goes on to say that in the case in hand the state's 

attorney-general did not appear to defend the case but 

it was defended by "the Solicitor of the Association."! 



CHAPTER XIV 
Negro Gatherings for Religious and Social Purposes 

One of the things for which the ante-bellum South has 
been criticised in the management of her colored popu- 
lation was the restrictions on their religious instruction. 
Probably this criticism would have been made with less 
vigor had it been generally known that the laws which in 
the letter were rigid were almost entirely ignored as regards 
meetings for strictly religious purposes when no appre- 
hension of insurrectionary activity was aroused. But 
the reason for not giving free rein even for religious meet- 
ings lay in the ever-present fear of servile insurrection. 
The patrol act of 1837§ made it the duty of every officer 
of the militia to break up any meeting or cabal of negroes 
which might come to his notice, summoning for the purpose 

*Contrast this with the claims of those so molested that the fee 
was what attracted the sheriff to activity. 

tWhether this association was formed of those industrially opposed 
to the free negro, whether it was peculiar to Charleston, whether the 
policy was not at first upheld by the rest of the state, the writer has been 
unable to determine. It is probable, however, that if such an organi- 
zation was necessary at the first, whatever might have been its motive, 
such necessity did not long continue, for apparently it soon became 
the fixed policy of the state. It is merely suggested that this associa- 
tion later had some connection with the anti-abolition societies. 

IStatutes at Large, III, 461, sec. 14. 



134 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

a necessary number of the men under his command. Simi- 
larly the law of 1740t provided that any justice of the peace 
on information of any meeting of negroes should order the 
same to disperse, summoning such aid as would be neces- 
sary. Section 43 of that act made it lawful for any white 
persons to arrest and punish with not more than twenty 
hashes each of any number of male slaves exceeding seven 
found travelling in the road together without a white per- 
son in their company. It is safe to conjecture in this last 
instance that few people in later years knew there was 
such a law on the statute books and would not have under- 
taken to enforce it if they had been aware of it unless they 
believed the negroes on mischief bent; and in that case 
a less number than seven would not have saved the group 
from castigation for which some legal excuse could have been 
found. These enactments and their abeyance illustrate 
the futility of trying to maintain a strict police system by 
law. The dominant race in the South depended more upon 
expediency than upon fine-spun legal enactments in their 
dealings with the inferior. 

No one act dealt particularly with the matter of slave 
meetings until 1800* when a law was passed which made 
unlawful all assemblages of slaves and free negroes for 
mental instruction, even with whites present, "in a con- 
fined or secret place of meeting," behind "barred, bolted 
or locked doors" so as to prevent free ingress or egress 
from the same. All civil or military ofificers of the law 
were authorized to disperse such meetings and "if they deem 
it necessary" inflict twenty lashes on all free persons of 
color or turn them over to the constable, who, if the magis- 
trate should so decide, might inflict like punishment. The 
act further prohibited all meetings of negroes for religious 
or mental instruction between sunset and sunrise. § This 
latter provision interfered very seriously with the religious 
meetings held by the Methodist churches for the benefit 

fStatutes at Large, VII, 399, sec. 7. 
*Statutes at Large, VII, 440. 

jThe patrol law of 1819 already referred to authorized the breaking 
down of windows and doors by the patrol to carry out this provision. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 135 

of the negroes, because it often happened that, owing prob- 
ably to lack of a full supply of ministers, it was convenient 
to hold these meetings at night. It was also a custom of 
this denomination to hold "class meetings," and the doors 
were locked to prevent needless interruption to the sersnces 
of testimony. Similar meetings were held by the "class 
leaders" for the negroes. These would be violations of 
the law as it then stood. Accordingly the Methodist 
societies petitioned the legislature for a modification of 
the law of 1800. f Hence as a result this act was modified 
in 1803 by making it unlawful for any person to break into 
any such meeting before 9 p. m., provided a majority of 
those present were white, without a warrant from a justice 
of the peace, unless no justice lived within three miles.* 

An opportunity for an interpretation of this law came in 
1818 in the case of Bell vs. Graham, § which arose as follows: 
At Shady Grove Methodist church in Fairfield district 
regular meetings composed of whites and blacks for re- 
ligious purpose were held in daytime with open doors. The 
meetings were so often disturbed by the patrol that min- 
isters refused to preach there. But a sturdy "class leader" 
attempted to keep up the meetings. On one occasion 
the patrol came and, apparently without examining the 
negroes to see if they held written passes, dispersed the 
meeting, severely whipping one negro and threatening the 
others.^ It was impossible later for either side to show 
whether or not a majority of those present were white. 
The class leader was prevailed upon to prosecute the 
beat captain for unwarranted disturbance of religious 
worship, but the grand jury refused to return a true bill 

tl Nott & McCord, 283: Bell vs. Graham. 

♦Statutes at Large, VII, 448. 

§1 Nott & McCord, 278. 

tThe writer's maternal grandfather was a class leader and often 
remained, it is said, after the service for the whites, when the negroes 
were allowed a service of their own, consisting mostly of song and 
testimony, exhortation and the giving of religious experiences. Fre- 
quently another person in the community who was not in sympathy 
with the church or the negroes' meeting would interfere, but would 
desist when he found that the negroes had their passes. 



136 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

against the patrol. The captain of the patrol then brought 
suit to recover damages for false imprisonment. In spite 
of the judge's direction to the contrary, the jury assessed 
damages to the amount of $56.25 against the class leader, 
who promptly appealed to the higher court. The action 
of the two juries — the first in dismissing the case against 
the patrol, and the latter in finding a bill of damages 
against the class leader — is a clear indication, after allow- 
ance for possible local prejudices have been made, that 
the attitude of the authorities was always to give large 
discretion to the patrol in the administration of its duties. 
If, as is possible, local prejudice was partly responsible for 
the interruption of religious meetings, it emphasizes the 
careful distinctions the court would make. The points 
considered by the court may be summarized as follows: 
The right of undisturbed worship is inalienable; is the 
captain in this case protected by the patrol laws? Does 
the act of 1800 justify the patrol in disturbing the meeting? 
The whipping of the negro was unlawful since he was in 
the company of white persons. The plaintifif failed to 
show that there was not a majority of white persons present ; 
the doors were not barred nor was the meeting in a "con- 
fined and secret place," nor was it after nine o'clock in the 
evening. Even were a majority of those present negroes 
the law would not apply here for the act of 1803 was passed 
with the purpose of lessening the severity of the law of 
1800 and to legalize just such a meeting as this was: 

"It would indeed, be a strange anomaly in legis- 
lation to legalize an evil, which it was their avowed 
intention to prevent; the act itself warrants no such 
construction." 

The verdict of $56.25 against the class leader was set aside. 
It will be observed that the patrol captain, in so far as 
this action was concerned, went free as an officer of the 
law. It merely relieved the person who undertook to call 
the action of the patrol in question of any financial embar- 
rassment consequent upon his prosecution of the patrol. 
This case had a pronounced efYect upon the method and 
manner of the enforcement of the patrol law, and diminished 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 137 

the severity of its application against negro meetings. 
Judge O'Neall said later* that the provisions of these laws 
prohibiting negro meetings were dead letters in so far as 
their enforcement was concerned. f Any effort definitely 
by enactment to liberalize these laws or their principles 
met with disfavor. Several petitions with this in view 
were sent to the legislature. One from Sumter with 
particularly strong endorsement was presented in 1842 
and apparently caused some discussion, but it was referred 
to the judiciary committee which reported unfavorably. 
No trace of its ever having come to a vote in any way is 
revealed by the Journal. § 

Survivors of the ante-bellum period say that the custom 
in the rural districts was for assemblages of negroes to 
meet occasionally on Sunday afternoons for religious wor- 
ship and instruction and if one white person was present 
who was responsible for the conduct of the negroes that 
were present with their written passes, even if the negroes 
conducted the services, all the requirements of the senti- 
ments of the community were considered satisfied . Where 
the slaves did not greatly outnumber the whites, as was 
the case on the up-country farms, a gallery or the rear 
of the church was set apart for the exclusive use of such 
of the slaves as cared to attend the services held for 
the whites. f Sometimes there were meetings held for the 
negroes just after the service for the whites, when no white 
persons other than the minister were present. There 
appears to have been no objection on the part of maste rs 
to any preaching to their slaves unless there was reason 

*The Negro Law in South Carolina (published 1848), p. 24. 

fit would appear that the act of 1819, sec. 11, repealed the "majority 
of whites" provision, but if so it, too, was a dead letter. It came to be 
regarded that all that was necessary to make a meeting of negroes for 
religious purposes lawful was the presence of a white man who would 
be responsible for their conduct. The chief emphasis of sec. 11, above 
referred to. seems to be on the question whether or not a meeting were 
held in secret and behind barred doors and not upon the percentage 
of whites in the meeting. 

Ijournal of the House of Representatives, 1842, pp. 54, 85 and 100. 
tSee also Phillips, South in the Building of the Nation, vol, IV, 207. 



138 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

to believe that the person exercising this privilege was hostile 
to the institution of slavery or would inculcate in the minds 
of the slaves disturbing ideas that would tend to render 
them discontented with their condition. Harrison, in his 
"Gospel Among the Slaves," indicates that the slave 
owners were glad to have preaching for their slaves since 
it increased the ease of control. 

On the other hand the Southern whites were ever alert 
to prevent incendiary preaching to their slaves, as is shown 
in the following quotation from a pamphlet by "A Caro- 
linian" published in 1823 while the attempted Charleston 
insurrection was fresh in people's minds :t 

"Our planters have just cause of complaint on this 

subject [i. e., of negro meetings]. It is known to many 

that field negroes have been collected and addressed 

without the knowledge and consent of their masters. 

The planters, however, are now alive to their duty, 

and their interests, and it is not probable that such 

highly censurable conduct will ever be repeated." 

The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign 

Parts was chartered by William III in 1701. Within about 

a half a century of this time it had established a school for 

negroes in Charleston. This effort, under the auspices 

of the Episcopal Church, was perhaps the earliest and until 

the close of the Revolutionary War, the most effective 

effort to reach the colored population. There are contained 

in the instructions to the missionaries specific directions 

as to dealing with the negroes.* 

Some efforts had been made by others soon afterwards, 
if not contemporaneously. The Methodists reported 
890 colored members in 1796 and by 1821 they numbered 
42,059. The Baptists in 1806 reported 3,500. In 1819 
is is estimated that one-fourth of the communicants of 
the Presbyterian churches of Charleston were colored. § 

tSlave Population of S. C. (in its religious aspect), 1823. 

*Dalcho: Church History, p. 43. 

§These figures are taken from Jones: Religious Instruction of Slaves, 
pp. 53, 65, 57, 60. The authority he quotes for the figures for the 
Presbyterian Churches of Charleston is the Report of the Board 
of Managers of the Bible Society of Charleston. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 139 

It was about this time, 1828, that C. C. Pinckney went 
to the Rev. Mr. William Capers (afterwards bishop) and 
asked if he could secure for him a Methodist exhorter as 
an overseer, he having heard that one such had been a 
decided success on a friend's plantation owing to the fact 
that the overseer had relied more upon the religious motive 
than the lash as an incentive to good behavior. Capers 
was not slow to see the opportunity and while he was not 
in a position to supply him with such an overseer, he offered 
to send a "missionary" to preach to the slaves on his 
plantation, to which Pinckney readily assented.* Such 
is the well authenticated story connected with the founding 
of the Methodist missions to the slaves in South Carolina 
in 1828, of which Capers became the first superintendent. 

We shall have to drop the incidents of the work begun 
and carried forward by the denominations, though interest- 
ing, to study the complications to which it in part gave 
rise. 

Soon after this promising beginning in efforts to improve 
the colored race began the publication of abolitionist lit- 
erature in the North and the terrible Nat Turner insur- 
rection in Virginia. This halted all benevolent movements 
for the betterment of the negroes' status. It is clearly 
put by Rev. C. C. Jones, a Presbyterian minister, who had 
devoted his life to work for the negro in Georgia:! 

"The very foundations of society were assailed and 
men went forth to the defense. A tenderness was 
begotten in the public mind on the whole subject, 
and every movement touching the improvement of 
the negroes was watched with jealousy. 

It was considered best to disband schools and dis- 
continue meetings at least for a season; the formation 
of societies and the action of ecclesiastical bodies 
in some degree ceased. 

*Wightman: Biography of Capers, p. 121; Shipp: History of 
Methodism in South CaroUna, p. 449. 

tReligious Instruction of the Negroes, p. 97. 



140 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

"The feelings of men being excited j those who 
had undertaken the religious instruction of the negroes 
were looked upon with suspicion and some of them 
were obliged to quit the field. It was not considered 
that a separation could be made between the religious 
and civil condition of the people; and that a minister 
could confine himself to the one without interfering 
at all with the other." 
But not all hope was given up by benevolently disposed 
whites after the excitement had quieted down. There 
is in the Charleston Library a pamphlet publishing the pro- 
ceedings in part of a meeting called to assemble in Charles- 
ton May 13-15, 1845, to discuss and plan for a more intel- 
ligent and systematic religious instruction of the slave 
population. It was promoted apparently by the Episco- 
palian churches, chiefly those of Charleston, while the other 
denominations contributed their part to the movement. 
A series of letters had been sent out to a number of ministers 
and planters in all parts of the state making inquiry as 
to the present status of the religious instruction of the 
negroes, as to how often meetings were held for them, and 
if these were conducted by negroes solely. Other questions 
were asked, but these indicate the phase of the subject 
in which we are interested. The replies form the more 
interesting part of the pamphlet, showing religious con- 
ditions and the customs among the negroes to be very 
much as they have been described above. It seems that 
the difficulties that would attend any modification of the 
law so as to allow more liberty for religious meetings of 
the negroes remained unsolved and the meeting adjourned 
without being able to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion 
along this line. 

One point brought out clearly in the replies is that the 
services of the negro preachers to their own race were 
considered inexpedient. In some instances the colored 
preachers were commended but in most they were con- 
demned as being ignorant and incapable of giving intel- 
ligent instruction even if they did not teach ideas sub- 
versive of the established order of things. Russell, in his 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 141 

Diary,* quotes a white man in Georgetown as saying that 
these negro preachers "do the niggers no good — they talk 
about things going on elsewhere and get their minds un- 
settled and so on." The report of a committee appointed 
by the South CaroHna Agricultural Society to investigate 
the religious instruction of the slave recommends against 
allowing negroes to preach. f Some whites even objected 
to the negro "watchman," whose duty it was to look after 
the spiritual welfare of the slaves associated with him, 
because, they claimed, it gave them undue prominence 
and undue self conceit as a result. 

While the negro preacher was tolerated and probably 
accomplished much good in many instances, it was the 
possibility of the harm he might do that disturbed the 
whites. The religious meeting composed solely of blacks 
was looked upon with more decided disfavor and was prob- 
ably rare. Here are some characteristic remarks about 
such a meeting in Charleston in 1816 :§ 

"Almost every night there is a meeting of these 
noisy, frantic worshippers. . . . Midnight! Is 
that the season for religious convocation? Even 
allowing that these meetings were conducted with 
propriety, is that the accepted time? That the meet- 
ing of numerous black people to hear the scripture 
expounded by an ignorant and (too frequently) vicious 
person of their own color can be of no benefit either 
to themselves or the community is certain; that it 
may be attended with many evils is, I presume, 
obvious to every reflecting mind." 
It had always been the separate meeting of blacks 
under their own management that had aroused most 
suspicion in the mind of the public. Jervey, in his "Life 
and Times of Robert Y. Hayne," mentions two such meet- 
ings. At one in 1817 four hundred and sixty-nine negroes 
were arrested in Charleston for holding a meeting in a house 

*My Diary North and South, p. 60. 

jDeBow's Review, XXVI, 107. 

§H. F. F., in The Times (Charleston) July 17, 1816. 



142 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

and on a lot owned by ihc negroes. f The other is quoted 
from the Charleston Courier of June 9,1818. It is important 
enough to be quoted in full:§ 

"One hundred and forty free Negroes and Slaves, 
belonging to the African church, were taken up on 
Sunday afternoon by the City Guard and lodged in 
the guard-house. The city council yesterday morning 
sentenced five of them, consisting of a Bishop and 
four ministers, to one month's imprisonment, or to 
give security to leave the state. Bright other ministers 
were also sentenced separately to recei\e ten lashes 
or pay a fine each of ten dollars." 
On the other hand it will be interesting to note that it was 
the official policy of at least a part of the Presbyterian 
Church to have their ministers hold separate meetings for 
the negroes, but this was different from the negroes conduct- 
ing their own meeting.* James L. Pettigru is quoted as 
saying in a speech at the meeting on the Religious Instruc- 
tion of the Negroes that the sentiment for separate meet- 
ings for the negroes was growing. 

Certain free negroes of Charleston petitioned the legis- 
lature in 1820 to be permitted to conduct their own w^orship 
indei^endently at Hampstead, their church having been 
already erected. The matter was referred to the Charleston 
delegation in the general assembh', who recommended 
unfavorable action upon the petition. ft 

It was brought out at the Vesey trial that it was at an 
"African congregation [which] was not only composed of 
colored persons but their minister w'as also colored" that 
the details of the plot were worked out.** 

tP. 75. 

§By a slip Mr. Jervcy makes it read 143 instead of 140, p. 79. 

*Mailard: Plantation I-ifc Before Emancipation, p. 159, quotes the 
action of the Presbytery at Barnwell in 1817. 

^jCharleslon Courier, Dec. 5, 1820; Southern Patriot, Dec. 5, 1820. 

"Ordered for consideration on Monday" appears in the newspaper 
accounts of the proceedings of the Legislature, but a patient search 
of the available files of papers covering the period of the session of 
the Legislature revealed no further mention of the matter. 

**Kennedy and Parker, Negro Plot, p. 23. 



Control of Skives in South Carolina 143 

Sometime prior to 1850 there was a church in Charleston 
for negro worship called Calvary, founded under the 
direction and authority of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
of South Carolina, probably because there was no adequate 
accommodation for them in the churches for white people.* 
This colored congregation seems to have aroused some 
question in the people's minds as to the expediency and 
lawfulness of such a venture. Such was the feeling that 
a public meeting was held, over which the mayor presided, 
to inquire into the matter. Committees were appointed 
to investigate: (1) What measures for the religious in- 
struction of negroes were used in Charleston and with 
what results, good or bad — if bad, how could they be 
remedied ; (2) All the material facts bearing on the particu- 
lar case of Calvary church; (3) What the laws governing 
such a case are, and is the enactment of other laws desirable? 
The important points brought out by the inquiry were that 
the church was organized by the Episcopal Church, for 
there was not sufficient accommodation for the people of 
color as was the case in many other places. The church 
had been placed under a regularly authorized minister 
of that denomination; the teaching was oral. There was 
a place set apart for whites who might care to attend 
either for precaution as to the movements of the negroes 
or for any other reason. There were found to exist "bands" 
among the negroes the purpose of which was to relieve the 
sick and assist in the expenses incurred in the burial of 
their dead. The burial society was a sort of fraternal 
necessity for free negroes and slaves in the towns who were 
allowed to hire their time and act in a large measure as 
free. But the very name and the possibilities suggested 
by its nature would arouse suspicion. The Reverend 
Whiteford Smith, of the Methodist Church, who partici- 
pated in the meeting, came to the defense of the "bands," 
attesting their benevolent character. No further definite 
action as to the Calvary church appears to have been taken. 

Negro funerals were almost always held at night, in 

•Published Proceedings Relating to Calvary Church and Instruction 
of Slaves, 1850; in S. C. Hist. Soc. Collection. 



144 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

order probably to accommodate slaves who could at this 
time only have opportunity to attend them. An ordi- 
nance of the city of Charleston in 1789t prohibiting the 
meeting at a free negro's house of more than seven slaves 
made an exception in the case of funerals, with a view 
apparently of encouraging the custom. A rather weird 
sight must have been this racially superstitious people 
carrying torches with the corpse, and the laying to rest 
one of their number often with more or less curious cere- 
monies. Probably the whites, trusting to the semi-bar- 
barous superstition of the negroes being awed by the 
presence of death, allowed these funerals, thinking of no 
possible harm to come from them. But if we are to be- 
lieve the account of a "Taxable Citizen of Ward Four," 
who writes to the Southern Patriot of September 19, 1835, 
even these funerals are fraught with danger and are some- 
thing more than solemn: 

"There are sometimes every evening in the week 
funerals of negroes accompanied by three or four hun- 
dred negroes and a tumultuous crowd of other slaves 
who disturb all the other inhabitants in the neigh- 
borhood of burying grounds in Pitt street near Bound- 
ary street. It appears to be a jubilee for every 
slave in the city. They are seen eagerly pressing to 
the place from all quarters, and such is frequently the 
crowd and noise made by them that carriages cannot 
safely be driven that way. . . . Let it be re- 
membered too that the officiating priests are black 
men." 
The article recommends that attendance at negro funerals 
be limited by ordinance to fifteen or twenty composed only 
of relatives of the deceased and that the guard be instructed 
to take up all hangers-on. 

It appears that at times, after proper precautions had 
been taken, some social privileges were allowed the slaves 
by their masters. The celebrations of weddings were 
not unusual things. Even dances were doubtless per- 
mitted. But the more common form of social privilege 

tCharleston Ordinances, p. 180. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 145 

allowed was in the nature of bringing the slaves together 
and under the glow of the hilarity that comes of social 
contact they were set to light tasks. Log rolling, when a 
neighbor invites the slaves of other owners in the com- 
munity to assemble at a not very busy season to assist 
in getting off the newly cleared land the timber and debris, 
was one of these occasions. Feats and contests of strength 
afforded merriment. A dinner, plentiful if not elaborate, 
crowned the event. "Corn shuckings" to which all the 
slaves in the community were invited were common, even 
weekly occurrences in the harvesting time. After the corn 
was all husked supper would be served; sometimes whiskey 
too, in the yard by the light of the moon, and various 
matches as wrestling were engaged in, and the negro 
melodies resounded, after which the crowd broke up and 
went home, refreshed by the outlet afforded their spirits. 
The slaveowners and whites generally did not object 
to the slave attending religious services or having the privi- 
lege of some social enjoyment. It was the constant danger 
they felt, perhaps often exaggerated, of the meetings 
being made the occasion of insurrectionary activity. This 
is the reason for the acts of 1800 and 1839* expressly pro- 
hibiting such meetings, which if they had been rigidly ob- 
served and enforced would well nigh have cut off all op- 
portunity of the negroes to meet together for any pur- 
pose. Booker Washington thinks that the restrictions ob- 
tained were sufficient to prevent the financial progress of 
the free negroes in the state, and had there not been such 
restrictions on their co-operation facilitated by meetings 
held by them in their interest they would have been further 
advanced in 1861 than they were.f The patrol was given 
the authority to interfere in these meetings. And, not- 
withstanding the tendency which existed, of giving the 
patrol large discretionary powers, we see how that in 1818 
the patrol was rebuked by the highest court for inter- 
ference in a religious meeting. 

*Statutes at Large, XI, 64. 
tOutlook, 93, 113, Sept. 18, 1909. 



146 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

Another case, the State vs. Boozer et al.,t from New- 
berry district, came up to the Court of Appeals from the 
lower court in 1850. . This decision puts a liberal interpre- 
tation on the law regarding innocent meetings of negroes 
for other than religious edification. The main facts are, 
that not far from what is now Prosperity a slave woman 
secured the consent of her master to hold a "quilting," 
to in\'ite other slaves and to use the master's kitchen for 
the purpose. Less than a dozen slaves, a majority being 
women, were present with written passes from their masters. 
Everything was orderly and went well until after the master, 
in whose kitchen the meeting took place, had retired. 
About ele\en o'clock he was aroused by a disturbance, 
caused by the presence of the patrol. The captain of 
the patrol was remonstrated with by the master all to no 
purpose. The master was ordered to summon all his 
slaves from the kitchen while the others were whipped by 
the patrol although they produced their passes. The 
owners of some of the visiting slaves decided to test the 
matter in the courts. The patrol was prosecuted and 
fined $25 in the sessions court for "unlawfully whipping 
slaves." The patrol appealed on the ground that it was 
a meeting of negroes after 9 p. m. and that there were no 
whites present except the resident master and his family 
wlio were asleep in the dwelling house some distance away. 
It was clear that the patrol had from the letter of the law 
a good defense. But the court took the opposite view and 
confirmed the lower court in the conviction of the patrol. 
Justice Withers, in giving the opinion of the court, has but 
little to say of the law in the case and bases his decision 
more on expediency and the general principles of a generous 
humanity and the implied purpose of the slave code. In- 
deed the way in which the letter of the law is evaded is 
rather remarkable, but it was not unusual in this highest 
tribunal to take such liberal views on the interpretation 
of the slave law even to such an extent that the judges 
were criticised for it. The court was careful to say that 
had there been reasonable suspicion that the meeting was 

t5 Strobhart (Law), 21, 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 147 

of a disturbing or disorderly kind the patrol would have 
been upheld completely. But the presumption was all 
the other way. The court says in part: 

"The slaves who were whipped were on the premises 
of a citizen, himself a slaveowner, by his consent, 
and with tickets from their masters. The occasion 
was a perfectly innocent one, even meritorious; for 
Hunter's negro women had obtained his permission 
to call in the assistance toward the construction of a 
quilt for her bed, or some bed; and it is to be hoped 
that no master in the state would have denied such 
an indulgence, when he had no motive to suspect 
that it was contrived to cover up some evil design. 
How many of us have permitted to our slaves the 
enjoyment of a wedding party and ceremony in 
imitation of the higher classes, and even contributed 
to the good cheer of the occasion? It is surely no 
novelty among slaveowners, that by consent of all 
parties, one slave should obtain the assistance of his 
neighbors to gather his little crop, even though it be 
on Saturday night, or to erect or improve his cabin. 
It would be painful to find that the law forbids mas- 
ters to permit or encourage the sla\e in honoring 
the humble virtues that may be consistent with his 
condition, whether the same take the direction of 
social relations and intercourse among themsehes, 
or the advancement of household comforts. The 
true spirit of our law does not aim at such an end, 
where the mode of attaining it presents no conflict 
with the interests, peace and security of the public. 
These must undoubtedly be regarded at all hazards; 
and no police regulations subserving that high policy 
can be justly branded as cruel or tyrannical. 

"It would seem simply ridiculous to suppose that 
the safety of the State or any of its inhabitants, was 
implicated in such an assemblage as this at Hunter's, 
composed of a few males, more females; with tickets 
from their owners; in the kitchen of a citizen b}- his 
consent; not impudent or disorderly by the ad- 



148 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

mission of the defendants, assembled at a quilting 
anfl no evidence of a carousal by eating or drinking. 
"Let them [i. e., the patrol] exercise with judicious 
freedom the power to disperse unlawful assemblies 
as they are expressly empowered by . . . the 
patrol law to do, in relation to slaves, free negroes and 
mustizoes; such for example as are found in disorderly 
houses . . . but a judicious freedom in the ad- 
ministration of our police laws for the lower order 
must always have respect to the confidence which 
the law reposes in the discretion of the master, the 
presence of the proprietor, his loyalty to the sym- 
pathies and the policy, involves our common interests, 
peace and safety." 



CHAPTER XV 
Slave Insurrections 

The following paragraph will narrate some instances 
of well known insurrectionary attempts that may be found 
treated in other accounts of slavery. However, their 
mention here will not only serve to complete the descrip- 
tion of the police control of the slaves, but will at the same 
time show what basis there was for the great fear which 
the whites continually felt in varying degrees of intensity. 
It is the explanation of the stringency of some slave laws, 
particularly those just discussed prohibiting meetings of 
negroes, sometimes to the extent of interfering with re- 
ligious instruction. 

The danger from insurrection seems to have been im- 
minent from early times since almost the first act on slavery, 
that of 1690,t provided the death penalty for an attempt 
to instigate an uprising. As a precaution the act of 1722* 

tStatutes at Large, VII, 346, sec. 10. 
♦Statutes at Large, VII, 382. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 149 

made it the duty of justice of the peace to seize any horses 
kept solely by slaves since they afforded additional op- 
portunity for the carrying on of insurrectionary plots. 

The first plot of much importance was the Stono* up- 
rising of September 9, 1739. The Spanish colony at St. 
Augustine, always hostile to the South Carolina settlement, 
seems to have encouraged in every way the incendiary 
propensities of the South Carolina slaves. McCrady,! 
whose account is for the most part followed here, says 
that the slaves were encouraged by emissaries of the 
Spanish to leave their masters and on reaching the Spanish 
fort were protected and even organized into militia com- 
panies; and these facts were communicated to other slaves 
in Carolina to encourage them also to leave. A number 
of negroes finally assembled at Stono, broke open a ware- 
house, killed the two guards, stole the arms and ammu- 
nition, and proceeding further, killed a Mr. Godfrey and 
family and fired his house. For fifteen miles they proceeded 
burning, plundering and murdering, compelling all negroes 
they met to follow. Twenty-one white persons fell victims 
to their barbarism? Finding rum in some of the houses, 
they imbibed freely with the result that they began to 
celebrate with an orgy of dance and song. Governor 
Bull met them on his return from a visit to the outside. 
A Mr. Golightly had also observed them from a safe dis- 
tance. These two spread the alarm, the latter pressing 
immediately after them on securing the assistance of the 
white men who were attending worship at a Presbyterian 
church, and who in obedience to law had gone to church 
armed. The militia surrounded the rebellious negroes 

*A plot to capture Charleston by the negroes in 1720 is mentioned by 
Schaper, "Sectionalism in South Carolina," p. 310. "But is was dis- 
covered and many of them taken prisoners, and some burned, and some 
hanged and some banished." 

Another is mentioned in a pamphlet, "Refutations of Calumnies 
Against the Southern and Western States," by a "Carolinian," 
where a few negroes had in 1730 planned probably an unsystematic de- 
predation on the settlement and had actually met at a "dancing bout." 
They were discovered, all were taken and the ringleaders executed. 

tSouth Carolina Under the Royal Government, 1719-1776, p. 185. 



150 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

and captured nearly all of them. Those who apparently- 
had followed because of pressure were pardoned. Those 
losing their lives in the attack and those of the negroes 
executed amounted to fort\'-four. 

The outbreak brought consternation to the peaceful 
inhabitants of the colony. The militia patrol to the south- 
ward was strengthened. In 1740 the great slave act was 
passed, which remained the basic negro law for the next 
century and a quarter. It would not be surprising then 
if on investigation this code should be found to be severe. 
Such is not the case, however. McCrady states that in 
some respects the condition of the slaves was ameliorated. 
The precautions against insurrection, however, were rigid, 
one section prohibiting beating drums, blowing horns or 
the like which might on occasion be used to arouse slaves 
to insurrectionary activity.* A special act of the same 
year was passed quieting any claim against the state by 
any owner for a slave who had been put to death by exe- 
cution for being concerned in the insurrection. 

The City Gazette and Daily Advertiser (Charleston) of 
November 22, 1797, tells of four negroes being tried on the 
charge of conspiracy to fire the city of Charleston. One 
turned state's evidence against the others. This one with 
one of the others was sentenced to be transported, while 
the other two went to the scafTold. Five days later another 
was implicated and hanged. It was perhaps merely an 
isolated case of a purpose or possibly a threat of incendiar- 
ism and may not have been serious in its extent and aim. 
But it illustrates the possibilities involved. 

Some fear apparently had come to be had of unprincipled 
and irresponsible whites who for any reason might aid in 
insurrectionary movements. The act of ISOSf made it 
treason punishable with death for "any person" in any way 
to aid in an insurrection. Confession or the testimony 
of two witnesses was sufftcient to convict. Good reason 
for believing that this was intended to reach whites is that 

*McCready speaks of the negroes in the Stono insurrection as march- 
ing "with colors flying and drums beating." 
tStatutes at Large, V, 503. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 151 

no such limitations as to evidence would be probable in 
the case of a negro. 

The Camden attempt at insurrection occurred in 1816. 
The betrayal of the plot led the whites to believe that it 
had been in contemplation for a long time.* The plan 
was to fire the "powder magazine," an old arsenal, thus 
attracting the attention of the white people to that part of 
the town while the negroes should assemble in another 
quarter, massacre the whites and burn the rest of the town. 
They had apparently, as was usually the case except in 
the Vesey instance, nothing further definitely in view. 
The date for the attempt was significantly set for July 4.t 
A faithful slave revealed the plot to his master who com- 
municated with the governor. An officer of the militia 
was detailed to secure evidence of the plot, without if 
possible revealing the identity of the informing slave. 
By a shrewd move Col. Chestnut carried on a counter plot 
and in this way secured the details of the original plot. 
Seventeen were arrested, seven of whom were convicted 
after a trial before a court consisting of two magistrates 
and five freeholders. Five were executed ; one was pardoned 
after all the plans for his execution had been completed; 
one was sentenced to one year's imprisonment or to be 
deported from the United States. § The informing slave 

*Gov. Williams' Annual Message, 1816. 

fA "Carolinian" in a pamphlet, "The Slave Population of South 
Carolina (in its Religious Aspects)," says fourth of July orations should 
not be heard by slaves as they would be misled by addresses on liberty. 

§For these facts the writer is indebted to Mr. T. J. Kirkland, Esq., 
of Camden, who kindly allowed him to read the chapter on the Camden 
insurrection from the manuscript of the second volume of his History 
of Camden in course of preparation with the aid of Prof. Kennedy. 
Mr. Kirkland had access to files of the Camden Journal of 1816, which 
contained all the newspaper accounts; he also was fortunate in finding 
the official records of the trial preserved in the old courthouse but which 
since the removal of the papers to the new courthouse have been mis- 
placed. From Mr. Kirkland 's narrative, which is based on contempo- 
rary newspaper accounts, it appears that the local municipal authorities 
deserve more credit for dealing with the participants in the plot than 
the governor's message would seem to indicate, the latter leaving the 
impression that the chief executive directed all detective operations. 



152 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

was purchased by an act of the legislature appropriating 
$1,100 for the purpose and giving to the slave $50 per 
annum during his lifetime. f This insurrectionary effort 
seems to have put Camden and the up-country on their 
guard, for the act of 1818 on the Camden patrol shows an 
increased interest and vigilance. 

But the attempt at insurrection which is the best known 
as one of the more important plots in the United States, 
and which showed more intelligence in its conception and 
plan, was the Vesey plot of 1822 in Charleston. Denmark 
Vesey, a free negro, planned it in conjunction with certain 
slaves, the more important of whom were Gullah Jack, 
Monday Gell and Peter Poyas. The plan was for those 
in the plot to rise suddenly about the first of July,* seize 
the shipping, burn the town, and then sail away to the 
West Indies. The slaves invited to join were told that the 
whites were contemplating a gigantic slaughter of the 
negroes because they had become too numerous. Every- 
thing was apparently in readiness for some time. On May 
30, Peter, a faithful slave who had been asked to join the 
plot, communicated what he knew to his master. The 
city authorities were apprised, a court summoned, and 
information sought. Arrests were made, and, to show the 
persistence of the leaders, even after some of those involved 
had been arrested, they either in desperation or without 
fully calculating the determination of the whites made 
efforts to bring the plot into execution. But the greater 
part of them were intimidated. The special negro court 
of magistrates and freeholders! sat almost continuously 
for nearly a month. Those first arrested were placed in 
solitary confinement, and as the trial proceeded confessions 
came out, some after the prisoners had been sentenced to be 
hanged. The number arrested was 131, 67 of whom were 
convicted; the number executed was 35, all slaves except 
Vesey; the number deported, 32. In the appendix to Ken- 

tStatutes at Large, VI, 58. 

*June 16 had been fixed upon but the time was later changed. 
§After most of the trials were finished the first court dissolved and 
another was chosen. City Gazette, July 31, 1822. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 153 

nedy & Parker's Negro Plot, p. 189, is related the trial and 
conviction of four white men in the session court for com- 
plicity in the plot. Their sentences ranged from three to 
twelve months' imprisonment and upon release they were 
to be required to give security for good behavior for five 
years in sums ranging from SlOO to $1,000.* 

The Nat Turner insurrection in Virginia in 1831 aroused 
the whole South. E^•ery community in neaj proximity 
beat the bushes, as a local phrase puts it, to see if there 
were any additional plots subsidiary to the greater one in 
Virginia. There is little or nothing to indicate that the 
South Carolina slaves were in any way concerned. How- 
ever, in Laurens district two slaves were tried and con- 
victed of being in an agreement to meet others and to join 
in such an undertaking if the opportunity should arise, f 
The Nashville Republican and State Gazette of October 
22, 1831, copies a letter from the Baltimore Chronicle to 
the effect that it was believed that the Turner plot was 
widespread and that an attack on Cheraw had been planned. 
Chapman§ relates a reminiscence that at one time there 
was great excitement at the town of Newberry aroused by 
a rumor that a number of negroes had made an outbreak 
near Jalapa, seven miles distant, but it turned out to be a 
mere hoax. These are sufficient to show in how dangerous 
a situation the people of the South believed themselves 
to be. Probably, it is not, therefore, too much to say that 
their fears were exaggerated. 

The Vesey plot put everybody to thinking. The fancied 
security of the whites, if it existed, had a rude awaken- 
ing. Everybody was anxious that some remedy should 

*For an account of the plot see Phillips, "The Slave Labor Problem 
in the Charleston District," Pol. Sci. Quar., XXII, No. 3. 

Jervey: Life and Times of Robert Y. Hayne, chap. XII. 

The two comtemporary accounts: One published by authority of 
the Corporation of Charleston, 1822, in pamphlet form— "An Account 
of the Late Intended Insurrection among a portion of the Blacks of 
this City;" the other Kennedy & Parker, "Negro Plot," 1822, pub- 
lished by authority of the court trying the negroes. 

fGov. Hamilton's Annual Message, 1831. 

lAnnals of Newberry, p. 501. 



154 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

be applied, but were perhaps doubtful of what it should be. 
Citizens of Charleston presented a memorial to the legis- 
lature praying the expulsion of free negroes from the state. 
Indeed, because Vesey was free and because he was not a 
native of the state great distrust of the free negroes* arose, 
and particularly did the people appear to think that every 
precaution should be taken to keep any of this class from 
coming into the state. Since several strengthenings of 
the slave law had already been accomplished in the three 
years just preceding — as a new patrol law and one pro- 
hibiting further manumission — the only direction in which 
further improvements could be effected was in a stricter 
enforcement of the laws, and passing of the seamen acts.f 
But the extreme precaution taken against immigrant free 
persons of color in the seamen act threatened to cause in- 
ternational complications. As Professor Phillips suggests, 
the Vesey plot checked any tendency toward liberalism 
which may have been prevalent at this time and made the 
arguments of the abolitionists which began to be dis- 
seminated within the next decade, the less acceptable to 
the South. 



CHAPTER XVI 
Abolition and Incendiary Literature 

It will now be easier to see why the South looked with 
hostility upon abolition and abolition propagandists as 
enemies of the established order of things. They regarded 
the slave stealer as a sort of anarchist, but understood his 
motives. But to the South the abolitionist appeared as 
a red-handed murderer and worse. Perhaps there was some 
reason for it, indeed from their way of looking at it very 
good reason. Slavery was not only an economic and in- 

*Fhillips, supra. 

jThc act of 1822 also provided the death penalty for participating 
in an insurrection whether successful or not. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 155 

dustrial system, and as such felt to be a burden by the 
non-slaveholder; but more than that, it was a gigantic 
police system, which the poor man in the up-country as 
well as the wealthy planter in the lowlands did not know 
how to replace. To put the negro on an equality with 
the white man politically, if considered at all, was regarded 
as madness. Now the abolitionist program was for the 
most part negative — away with the institution of slavery! 
To the mind of Southerners abolitionist literature and 
teaching would excite undue hopes in the minds of the 
slaves. Naturally they would turn to assist the propa- 
ganda with the torch and crude implements of murder and 
torture. It rendered unsafe the homes and farms scattered 
over the state. The natural instincts of social self pre- 
servation revolted at any faith, belief or movement that 
had as its filial principle the sudden overturning of the 
established order of society. The editor of the Camden 
Journal on November 23, 1833, replied in an editorial to 
the request of Dennison for an exchange of his paper for 
the Emancipator by asking 

"if he would exchange courtesies with a ruthless 
incendiary who should enter his dwelling at midnight 
with a flaming torch and fixed determination to 
spread ruin and desolation? Let his answer be ours." 
In 1820 a law was enacted* making it a high misde- 
meanor with a maximum punishment of a fine of $1,000 
and imprisonment for a year for any white person to intro- 
duce into the state any written or printed matter sub- 
versive of the established order of things with reference to 
slavery. Any free negro found guilty of the same was to 
pay the above fine; for the second offense he was to receive 
fifty lashes and be banished from the state. If he returned, 
unless by unavoidable accident, the penalty was death. 
An act of 18231 prohibited, under penalty of a fine of 
$1,000, the bringing into the state by any person as a ser- 
vant any free negro who had been in the West Indies, 
Mexico or South America, or any of the states north of the 

♦Statutes at Large, VII, 459. 
tStatutes at Large, VII, 463. 



156 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

Potomac, or in the city of Washington. The fear was that 
free negro servants so travelled would be dangerous if 
brought into contact with the slaves. 

About 1831, at the time of the beginning of the aboli- 
tionist activity at the North and after a few of their papers 
had found their way to the South, there appeared in the 
Southern Times and State Gazette of October 8, 1831, pub- 
lished at Columbia, the following significant card: 

"$1,500 REWARD 

"The Vigilance Association, composed of a body of 
gentlemen of the first respectability, offers a reward 
of Fifteen Hundred Dollars for the apprehension and 
prosecution to conviction, of any white person who 
may be detected in distributing or circulating within 
this state, the newspaper called "The Liberator," 
printed in Boston by Garrison and Knapp — or the 
pamphlet called the "Walker Pamphlet" — or any other 
publication of a similar and equally mischievious 
and seditious tendency. 
Signed by the authority and in behalf of the Association 



"Columbia, S. C, Sept. 29, 1831." 

Governor Hamilton, in message No. 2 to the legislature 
in 1831, in speaking of the Southampton insurrection, quoted 
the governor of Virginia to the effect that these abolition 
papers had probably been the moving cause of the uprising. 
He then referred to the fact that the city authorities of 
Savannah had written the authorities of Boston with a 
view to having the publication suppressed, but the latter 
had replied that they had no power to comply. Probably 
the best way to deal with the incendiary literature 
would have been to turn over to the federal government 
its control. But Southerners scouted the idea since they 
feared the rights of the state vrould be too much interfered 
with. 

The refusal to consider any plan to put in the hands of 
the federal government the matter of dealing with incendi- 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 157 

ary publications made it impossible for the state to punish 
even indirectly those outside who sent incendiary publi- 
cations into the state. Hence they undertook to deal in 
their own way with this literature after it was brought into 
the state. The Charleston Courier, on July 30, 1835, re- 
ferred in a news note to the fact that a considerable quantity 
of abolitionist literature had been received at the Charles- 
ton postofihce for distribution. The postmaster promised 
some persons interested in peace and order not to distribute 
the matter until the postoffice department could be heard 
from. But on the following night other persons openly 
and forcibly entered the office and removed the objection- 
able literature. A citizens' meeting was called by the town 
council for the following Monday. This meeting seems 
not to have taken into consideration so much the lawless 
action of those entering the postoffice — probably regarding 
it as a consequence to be expected — as removing the oc- 
casion for such actions in the future. It appears that 
Robert Y. Hayne's influence prevented a vote of approval 
of the lawless act of the mob. By resolution a committee 
of twenty-one was appointed to take such action as was 
thought best. This committee conferred with the post- 
master and obtained from him a promise that no incendiary 
literature thereafter received at the postoffice should be 
distributed until the city authorities should be notified 
of its presence; the committee appointed a sub-committee 
to accompany the next mail from the wharf to the office 
to prevent violence. Thus closed a disagreeable incident 
though the fundamental questions at stake were far from 
a satisfactory understanding.* 

As will appear from the following quotation from the 
Laurensville Herald of August 24, 1849, it seems that in- 
cendiary matter had been sent through the upper part of 
the state: 

*Charleston Cotirier, July 30, 31, Aug. 3, 4, 5, 1835. 

Pamphlet: "Proceedings of the Citizens of Charleston on the Incen- 
diary Machinations now in Progress against the Peace and Welfare 
of the Southern States." 

Jervey (Robert Y. Hayne and His Times, p. 379) publishes a letter of 
the postmaster to the department at Washington. Also a good ac- 
count of the citizens' meeting. 



158 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 



"ABOLITION DOCUMENTS 

"These incendiary publications, as we learn from the 
Pendleton Messenger, are still sent in large quantities 
through Anderson and Pickens districts. They are 
not distributed, however, but consigned to the flames 
by the postmasters as soon as opened. How much 
longer will our people submit to be thus insulted?" 
Public attention was soon gi\'en to the matter at Pendle- 
ton resulting in an incident similar to that at Charleston. 
In 1849 a group of persons were at the postoffice receiving 
their mail when one present was handed a piece of un- 
palatable literature, and proceeded to read it for the edi- 
fication of those present. Upon inquiry it was found that 
there were thirty-eight more such papers. The local 
\igilance committee already organized demanded the 
objectionable matter. The postmaster refused to give 
it to any one except those to whom it was directed. The 
newspaper narrative f of the incident describes it further 
as follows: 

"The committee told him [the postmaster] they 
were determined to have the papers peaceably if 
they could, forcibK- if they must, that resistance 
would be in vain. They then entered the office, 
shoved the postmaster aside and took possession of 
them and now have them under lock and key." 
No further notice of the matter appears and this probably 
was the end of it. 

Amos Kendall, postmaster-general, had taken a rather 
two-sided stand on slavery literature, to the effect that he 
had no pow'er to prevent transmission of objectionable 
matter in the mails nor to protect it from violence. A 
series of resolutions* were passed by the legislature of South 
Carolina in December, 1835, declaring abolition societies 
subversive of the union, calling upon non-slaveholding 

^Charleston Courier, Sept. 25, 1849. Unfortunately the files of the 
Pendleton Messenger at the rniversity of South Carolina end with 
1848. 

*Rcprinted in Ames: State Documents on Federal Relations, p. 216. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 159 

states to aid in their suppression and commending the 
attitude of the federal government toward the mails. 

About this time began the controversial arguments over 
the merits and demerits of slavery, carried on through 
pamphlets and otherwise. They called forth the best 
intellectual talent of the South, but instead of bringing 
those in the North holding views different from those held 
in the South closer together it served further to separate 
them. But the controversial side of slavery does not come 
within the scope of this paper. 

There were at times, particularly after 1830, and during 
the last decade of the slavery period, extra-legal committees 
and associations organized for dealing both with questions of 
domestic policy and with outside interference with slavery. 
In Sumter district, in 1850, there was organized a "South- 
ern Rights Associations," with a "vigilance committee." f 
This committee was to watch for any appearance of out- 
side interference with the slaves, to report and prosecute 
cases of illegal trafficking or selling liquor to negroes. A 
similar association and committee existed in Kershaw 
district.* These are typical. 

In 1849 a white man was indicted for circulating incen- 
diary papers in Spartanburg district and held to trial under 
a bond for $1,000. Counsel complained that he had won 
considerable unpopularity by taking the case.§ The 
papers in the case are preserved in the county clerk of 
court's office at Spartanburg. With them is preserved 
a pamphlet, "An address to South Carolinians," by 
"Brutus," presumably one of the objectionable publica- 
tions, although it refers but little to slavery and is chiefly 
an appeal to the poor whites to demand a larger participa- 
tion in public affairs. The Abbeville Banner of May 27, 
1858, gives a news account of a meeting held at that place 
to order a family to leave who were suspected of inciting 
the negroes to unlawful acts. Within a few days the head 
of the family, claiming to be a map seller, left after being 
waited on by a committee. 

\Black River Watchman, Nov. 2, 1850, and Nov. 30. 
*Camden Journal, Nov. 5, 1850. 
^Charleston Courier, Oct, 9, 1849, 



160 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

But a more general and systematic effort to prevent 
incendiarism came after the whole South was shaken by 
the John Brown raid at Hari)er's Ferry in 1859. Perhaps 
the danger from incendiaries or from the outside generally 
was greatly exaggerated. The immediate danger was not 
so great pcssibh' as the excitem.ent ciiused by the raid 
would seem to indicate. This emphasizes the tense feel- 
ing caused by a quarter of a century of agitation. Resolu- 
tions condemnatory of Brown in particular and of the 
abolitionists in general and calling for a finetooth-comb 
investigation in every community for abolitionists, by 
enthusiastic committees, were adopted by numerous mass 
meetings and sometimes by legally constituted bodies. 
Three illustrative instances will suflfice. In Sumter dis- 
trict resolutions were passed of which the following form 
a part, calling upon the town council t 

"to institute a rigid surveilance on all such transient 
persons (stragglers from the North to visit and tarry 
in our town as agents for books, medicines, etc., whose 
real object may be to act as spies and abolition emis- 
saries) and when full satisfaction is not given to notify 
such persons that their presence in our community 
is not to be tolerated." 
On Nov. 25, 1859, a meeting was held in Abbeville to 
investigate certain suspicious characters in the community. 
As a result six white persons were told to lea^^e town who 
promised to comply but failed to do so. They were watched 
and being accused of holding improper language to slaves 
they were arrested. At a subsequent meeting it was deter- 
mined to appoint a vigilance conimittee to "observe the 
conduct of suspicious persons in the community and that 
they endeavor to detect any illicit traffic with slaves."* 
On December 1, 1859, the town council of Newlierry passed 
a preamble and resolutions of which the following definite 
plan is a part:§ 

"Resolved by the Town Council of Newberry that 

^Charleston Mercury, Nov. 23, 1859. 

* Abbeville Banner, Dec. 1, 1859. 

^Charleston Mercury, Dec. 16, 1859, quoted from the Rising Sun. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 161 

a Vigilance Committee consisting of five gentlemen be 
hereby appointed and constituted, whose duty it shall 
be to watch the movements of strangers coming 
within our midst, and when they think proper to de- 
mand of such persons a reasonable account of them- 
selves, and if, upon examination of such parties, that 
the said Vigilance Committee be and the same are 
hereby empowered to take such steps in the premises, 
by writs or otherwise, as they may deem proper to 
protect the public interests." 
The tense excitement in the state continued through the 
following year. Newberry district appears to have been 
well organized before the close of the next year with town- 
ship associations. Of these the one in Beth Eden township 
is typical. t The purpose of the meeting was stated to be, 
to secure organization throughout the state for protection 
against incendiaries. A committee appointed to draft 
resolutions made its report. Among the things recom- 
mended and that those present pledged themselves to, 
were: to enforce strictly patrol riding; not to give "general 
passes;" each owner to prevent his slaves from trading; 
to prevent any negro from preaching, and not to allow any 
negro meetings for religious purposes unless twelve white 
men are present; to deal legally with negro traders; to call 
upon the guardians of certain free negroes (named) that 
they be removed from the community; to allow no hunting 
by slaves or free negroes on the plantations. Similar 
sub-associations are reported from other townships and they 
passed similar resolutions, large numbers of slaveowners 
signing the paper. 

What was happening in Newberry was only typical of 
what was going on with a greater or less degree of excite- 
ment in other parts of the state. A pedler from Phila- 
delphia* was told to move on by the vigilance committee 
of York. A "clean shaven" transient man at Grahanuille 
turned out to be an abolitionist. § The Charleston Courier 

fThe Rising Sun, Nov. 14, 1860. 

* Charleston Courier, Dec. 3, 1859, quoted from Yorkville Enquirer. 
^Charleston Courier, Dec. 22, 1859, quoted from the Walterborough 
Sun. 



162 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

of Dec. 22, 1859, quotes the Marion Star for its authority 
that an EngHshman received a coat of tar and feathers 
in Columbia in compHment to his aboHtion views. Indeed, 
strangers were scanned with suspicion it would often seem. 
Northern birth or residence not infrequently placed the 
burden of proof of a wholesome faith in the Southern insti- 
tution upon the person so unfortunate as to have had such 
a former habitat. 

To supplement the laws against incendiaries an act of 
1859t was duly passed providing for the imposition of a 
fine in any amount and imprisonment for a term in the 
discretion of the court for any person printing, writing, 
drawing or engraving any paper calculated to incite slaves 
to insurrection. On the release of such an offender the 
court was to have the power to require bond for his future 
good behavior. The same penalties were made to apply 
to any one attempting to circulate such literature or sub- 
scribing for such literature with a view to distributing 
it. One section of the act attempted to make it the duty 
of the postmaster to notify the magistrate of any person 
receiving such literature in their mail — a provision that 
probably was without force. 

The Kingstree incident is one of the best illustrations 
of the distrust felt for the Northern sojourner in the South. 
The services of two teachers from the North had been 
engaged by persons in the community. One of the teachers 
had been a resident of the community for about two years, 
and the other for a shorter period of time. On November 
2, 1859, a mass meeting was held in a country store in 
Boggy Swamp, a few miles out from Kingstree, the court- 
house seat of Williamsburg district, with a view to taking 
Inaction with reference to the citizens from the North so- 
'journing in their midst. Resolutions were passed that it 
was the sense of those present that the two young men 
should be asked to leave as a precaution since they might 
prove eventually to be abolitionists. The newspaper 
account of the proceedings says:* 

tStatutcs at Large, XII, 655. 

*Charleslon Courier, Nov. 26, 1859, quotes Kingstree Star. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 163 

"Nothing definite is known of their aboUtion or 
insurrectionary sentiments, but being from the North 
and therefore necessarily imbued with doctrines hostile 
to our institutions, their presence in this section has 
been obnoxious and at any rate suspicious." 
From other accounts it appears that they had received 
printed matter through the mail on the wrapper of which 
were strange markings, written by some one while the mail 
was en route, whether by the postmaster whence it came 
as a warning to the local olifice regarding insufficient postage 
or as a warning to the addressee for receiving such mail, 
was not clear. At a second meeting one of those present 
referred to the conduct of certain negroes as being very 
suspicious. Another prominent gentleman took the ground 
"that there was no positive proof" against the teachers 
and hence they ought to go undisturbed. A committee 
of twelve was appointed f to communicate with the teachers 
and order them to leave the community. More conserva- 
tive men, including the employers of the teachers, depre- 
cated summary action, and the latter even offered to de- 
fend them against any violence. Furthermore they claimed 
that the young men were of correct habits and that the 
agitation grew merely out of prejudice which had its be- 
ginning months before in an altercation which one of the 
teachers had with the editor of a local newspaper. On 
Saturday, the day set for their departure by the mass meet- 
ing at Boggy Swamp, the teachers had not obeyed the man- 
date of the committee. Another meeting was held, this 
time in the town of Kingstrec, on the 26th. The afternoon 
train brought a number of interested persons.* The con- 
servative element was outnumbered, but prudence pre- 
vailed and the young men were allowed to remain to finish 
their term of work for which they had engaged, closing 
December 2 and 15 respectively. The committee remained 
in charge and reported in the local paper that they had seen 

tOne of these is still living (1911), with whom the writer has been in 
correspondence. 

*How many cannot be determined. One account says one hundred 
and that they were armed, while another says not more than fifteen 
and that they were divided in opinion as to what was expedient. 



164 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

one board the train the first of the month and without 
doubt the other must have decided to spend his Christmas 
holidays where the atmosphere was not so charged with 
iron.* 

It would be incorrect to imagine from all that has been 
said that the whole state was swept off its feet with excite- 
ment. In every community there was a conservative 
element that served to hold the agitation in check. Every 
community, however, appears to have had its fears aroused 
and the excitement in many parts was often at fever heat. 



CHAPTER XVII 
Prohibition of Educating the Negro 

After seeing the situation in the South with reference to 
insurrections and the incendiarism of abohtion, it will be 
easier to understand her attitude toward the education 
of the negro under the slavery regime. Most thinking 
people in the South today admit that the gradual education 
of the black is a positive good and that their fears of the 
effects from the most elementary teaching in former days 
was at least in large measure ill founded. On the other 
hand, getting their ante-bellum view and understanding 
their policy — probably lacking in progressive quality, 
but consistent — we are prepared to discuss the prohibition 
against instruction in reading and writing. 

The act of 1740t imposed a fine of £100 upon any person 
teaching a slave to write. One of the reasons for such a 
prohibition may be inferred from the following quotation 

*The facts of the Kingstree incident are based on fairly full accounts 
given in the Charleston Courier of Nov. 26, 29, Dec. 10, 22, 1859, com- 
posed of clippings from the Kingstree Star and accounts more or less 
partisan written for the Courier by the employers of the teachers and 
persons interested in their removal. So far as the writer has been able 
to learn no files of the local paper of that time exist, the editor's file 
having been burned a few years ago. 

tStatutes at Large, VII, 413; sec. 45. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 165 

from an advertisement of a runaway in the City Gazette 
of July 11, 1805. The fact which it illustrates is appli- 
cable to slavery of any period of South Carolina history. 
"He [i. e., the runaway slave] is a tolerable good 
reader and writer; it is likely he will change his name, 
write himself a pass, and pass for a free man."* 
Written permits to trade or for whiskey could very easily 
be used in the same way. It also made communication 
for insurrectionary purposes easy. Two negroes, who 
were brothers concerned in the Camden plot of 1816, 
it was shown could read and write. f This prohibition 
seems tacitly to have been understood as not to apply to 
any master who desired his slaves to be taught — he being 
held apparently morally responsible by the community 
for the consequences — and at any rate they might be taught 
to read and taught such religious principles as should be 
thought desirable and necessary. § McCrady''' mentions 
the existence of a negro school, near Charleston, where, 
through the efforts of the Society for the Propagation of 
the Gospel, a plantation was secured and slaves were bought 
for the purpose of being taught, chiefly religious training, 
with a view of sending them out as missionaries to other 
plantations. The school, beginning about 1743, enrolled 
at one time as many as seventy pupils. For about twenty 
years it was continued, but the lack of funds and probably 

*An old negro of the writer's acquaintance boasts that he wrote 
passes not only for himself but for other slaves. The fact that 
scarcely one out of ten passes probably was ever called for 
by the holder's coming in contact with the patrol lends credence to the 
statement. 

fPamphlet, Refutations of Calumnies against Southern and Western 
States, p. 76. The same pamphlet, written probably by Thos. Pinckney, 
also states the indulgence allowed slaves to read and write as one of 
the causes of the Vesey plot. 

§Ed. R. Laurens said in an address before the Agricultural Society 
of South Carolina in 1832, that if the slaves must be taught it should 
be done by a member of the master's family. Pamphlet address, 
Charleston Library. 

jSouth Carolina Under the Royal Government, p. 247. 



166 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

the lack of the support of the community caused its dis- 
continuance, f 

As time went on the prohibition of instruction in 
writing was the only legal expression against negro edu- 
cation until 1834. Prior even to this, however, some doubt 
had been expressed as to the advisability of allowing them 
to be taught to read. Mention has already been made of 
the fact that some negroes concerned in the Camden and 
Charleston attempted uprisings could read and write. 
The Sumter grand jury in its presentment in 1829 took the 
following notice of it:* 

"The Grand Jury of Sumter District represent as 
a grievance of no inconsiderable degree, the liberty 
which is allowed to owners of teaching their slaves to 
read, a practice which if generally encouraged will 
lead to consequences of the most serious and alarming 
nature." 
Hon. Ed. R. Laurens, in another address before the Agri- 
cultural Society of South Carolina in 1832, complains that 
religious pressure is being brought too much to bear to 
educate slaves and adds that the law against slaves learn- 
ing to write is a dead letter, for they are still permitted to 
learn to read. 

The activity of the abolition agitation in the early thirties 
called forth probably the law of 1834§ which forbade any 
white person on a penalty of a fine of $100 and six months' 
imprisonment to teach any slave to read or write. A free 
negro who should violate the provisions of the act was to 
be fined $50 and to receive fifty lashes. The slave who 
would undertake to teach slaves, not being capable of 
being reached by a fine, received the lashes. The reason 
for this attitude of the South is tritely and squarely put 
by Toombs, of Georgia :| 

tjoncs: Religious Instruction of the Slaves, p. 38; Dalcho: Church 
History, pp. 148-158, 192. 

*MS. records County Clerk's office, Sumter County. 
§Statutes at Large, VII, 468. 
^DeBow's Review, XX, 600. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 167 

"It is also objected that our slaves are debarred the 
benefit of any education. This objection is well 
taken and not without force; and for the evil the slaves 
are greatly indebted to the abolitionists. Formerly 
in some of the slaveholding states it was not forbidden 
to teach slaves to read and write; but the character 
of the literature sought to be furnished by the abo- 
litionists caused the states to take counsel rather of 
their passions than of their reason, and to lay the 
axe at the root of the evil." 
The act of 1834 applied only to slaves. There seems to 
have been some elTort to make a similar regulation for the 
free negroes or at least to prohibit negro schools, of which 
there must have been some at the time, as appears from a 
Charleston grand jury presentment in 1823 :t 

"We present as a grievance the number of schools 

which are kept in the city by persons of color, and 

believe that a City Ordinance prohibiting, under severe 

penalties, such persons from being public instructors 

would meet with general approbation." 

A more liberal policy, which characterized certainly a 

respectable minority of the whites, is to be seen from the 

following editorial utterance in the Charleston Courier of 

Dec. 9, 1835: 

"The plan of prohibiting [i. e., by legislation — bills 
pending at the time] schools for free colored people 
strikes us as both unwise and inefficient. If public 
schools be prohibited the march of mind will yet pro- 
gress under the domestic roof, and the effort to arrest 
it will prove worse than futile. Let these schools 
be rather regulated than prohibited and good may 
possibly be done — prohibit them and that will be done 
in secrecy which would not otherwise shun the light." 

\Charlesto7i Courier, June 31, 1823. 



168 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

CHAPTER XVI I I 
Manumission 

Until 1800 there was no restriction whatever placed by 
law upon the granting of freedom by a master to a slave 
as he might deem desirable or proper.* It seems to have 
been regarded as a matter merely of individual preference. 
There had been, it is true, a colonial law as far back as 
1722t requiring all owners who should set free any slave 
to provide for their departure from the province. But 
this act expired after a limited time as was the custom 
with colonial statutes and was not re-enacted. There 
were instances of slaves being freed by the colonial assembly 
as a reward for meritorious conduct. i 

The considerations that led to the imposing of restric- 
tions is stated in the preamble to the act of 1800 as follows:! 
"Whereas it has happened that many slaves of bad char- 
acter or indigent or infirm have been set free." ff The act 
then went on to provide that any master desirous of manu- 
mitting any slave should appear with the slave before a 
magistate and five freeholders, summoned by the magistrate 
for that purpose, prepared to answer all questions as to 
the slave's ability to earn his own living and as to his char- 
acter. If the magistrates and freeholders should deem it 
advisable they might issue a certificate permitting the 

*2 Bailey (Law), 137: Linam vs. Johnson; decided in 1831. 
jStatutes at Large, VII, 384. 

tA few may be mentioned as follows: Statutes at Large, VII, 419; 
IV, 545; V, 481. 

§Hammond: Cotton Industry, p. 41; Statutes at Large, VII, 442. 

Bills to this effect had been introduced the year before. 

City Gazette and Daily Advertiser, Dec. 4, 1799. 

ttO'Neall (Annals of Newberry, p. 47) mentions the case of a Cove- 
nanter who set his slaves free, but owing to their lack of thrift gathered 
them back again as slaves. This was probably in the latter part of 
the last century. The Covenanters, like the Quakers, are said to have 
disliked slavery and to have abstained from it. The writer's paternal 
grandfather was a Covenanter and refused to hold slaves until late 
ia life when he purchased a household servant. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 169 

emancipation. This certificate was to be recorded by the 
clerk of court together with the deed of emancipation, a 
copy of which was to be made out by the clerk and given to 
the negro set free. Under this act any person might seize 
a negro set free thereafter in any other way, exception 
being made of those to whom a bequest of freedom had been 
previously made, and might appropriate the services of 
such negro to his own use. In 1831 a case was heard by 
the Court of Appeals* involving the right of a negro to 
freedom, who had been allowed to act as a free man living 
on a farm to himself as early as 1800. The negro had been 
seized by an outsider under the provisions of this act. 
While the court did not confirm the title apparently ac- 
quired by the seizure it did declare that the negro was not 
a free man. 

But emancipation came to involve further difficulties. 
There was a general feeling in the South that the free negro 
in large numbers, unrestricted by the restraining and con- 
trolling authority provided for in the slavery system, would 
be a great evil, a menace to the peace and welfare of the 
community. Wheeler, in h\s Law of Slavery,^ has the fol- 
lowing note explanatory of the reasons for restraining 
emancipation : 

"When it is considered that slaves are a peculiar 
species of property, it will not excite surprise that 
laws are necessary for their regulation and to protect 
society from even the benevolence of slaveowners, 
in throwing among the community a great number of 
stupid, ignorant, and vicious persons, to disturb its 
peace and to endanger its permanency. 

"The right of society to regulate and control the 
ownership of this kind of property may be justified 
on the same grounds as some other species of property. 
No one can doubt the right of individuals to acquire, 
possess and sell gunpowder, but if the possessor chooses 
to take it to his house or store, in a city or populous 

*2 Bailey (Law), 137: Linam vs. Johnson. 
tP. 387. 



170 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

town, the public becomes interested and will restrain 
him within reasonable and proper limits." 
Governor McDuffie expressed the feeling of his time in his 
annual message of 1835, using the following language: 

"Emancipation would be a positive curse, depriving 
them of a guardianship essential to their happiness. 
. . . If emancipated where would they live? The 
idea of their remaining among us is utterly visionary. 
. . . The only disposition, therefore, that could 
be made of our emancipated slaves would be their trans- 
portation to Africa, to exterminate the native or be 
exterminated by them. . . . It is perfectly evi- 
dent that the destiny of the negro race is either the 
worst possible form of political slavery, or domestic 
servitude as it exists in the slaveholding states." 
It would seem that this opinion of the prospective menace 
from the presence of the freed negroes in any very consid- 
erable numbers became more acute as time passed. The 
extreme picture of it is drawn by Hon. John Townsend in a 
speech at Charleston in I860:* 

"It means again the turning loose upon society 
without the salutary restraints to which they are now 
accustomed more than four millions of a poor and very 
ignorant population to ramble in idleness over the 
country until their wants should drive most of them 
first to petty thefts and afterwards to the bolder crime 
of robbery and murder; or until their excesses, their 
impudence, their filth and starvation shall bring 
pestilence among them and sweep them off by thous- 
ands. Improvident to the last degree as they are, 
and accustomed to have all their wants attended to, 
day by day, would find them without provision; 
which night by night they must plunder of 
stock and of every other thing which they could carry 
ofT, until the country would be laid waste and impover- 
ished by their interminable aggressions." 
This feeling of danger from the increase of the number of 
freedmen became so prevalent by 1820 that th e legis- 
*Pamphlet, Doom of Slavery in the Union. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 171 

l^ture, in obedience to it, prohibited in that year the emanci- 
pation of any slaves, except by its own edict. f At its 
next session in 1821 it had before it petitions from owners 
for permission to emancipate as many as forty-five slaves. 
A committee was appointed to investigate as to the de- 
sirability of complying with their prayers.* It appears, 
however, that the failure of the legislature to take further 
action was intended to be interpreted that the law of 1820 
was to be construed as an absolute prohibition except in 
unusual cases. 

The most common circumstances under which emanci- 
pation of his slaves was sought by the master was in a will 
made often near the close of his life when in calmer moments 
he realized that some opportunity for bettering the condi- 
tion of his slaves ought to be made possible; or when he 
desired to reward the faithfulness of a slave who perhaps 
was diligent in attending him in a last illness; or again he 
might wish to atone for some fancied or real cruelty to 
his slaves. After a life of self interest had been served the 
man was more likely to be capable of looking at things in 
an unbiased light. But to leave a will to carry out such 
ideas involved his executors in difficulties from which they 
could not well escape. Realizing that peaceful emanci- 
pation could not be accomplished within the state, the 
testator often directed that they be removed from the 
state and set free. In 1835 the Court of Appeals held§ 
that this kind of will was not in violation of the letter or 
the spirit of the act of 1820, for it obviated the objection 
which that law sought to remove. This objection was that 
emancipation increased the number of free negroes in the 
community. But after removal and subsequent emanci- 
pation they could not return because of the prohibitions 
of the same law of 1820 against the immigration of free 
persons of color. This was directly in keeping with the 
sentiment expressed earlier by Governor Geddes in 1820, 
the advice of w hom with reference to the immigration of 

tStatutes at Large, VII, 459. 

*Charleston Courier, Dec. 1, 12, 1821. 

§2 Hill (Chancery), 304: Frazier et al. vs. Frazier, Executor. 



172 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

free negroes and emancipation was formulated into law 
just at that time. After speaking of the evil of the free 
negro immigrant he had said: 

"The restrictions on emancipation might be dis- 
pensed with if persons emancipated should be obliged 
to depart the state, within a limited time, and not 
be allowed to return to it afterwards, without your 
authority, on pain of seizure. But lest such a con- 
dition annexed to emancipation should be deemed 
void, owners of slaves might be allowed to release 
all right to their service, provided they remove out 
of the state within a certain time, and their release 
to be in force during their absence from the state; 
and a slave to whom it may be given, to be liable to 
be seized as a slave on his being found within the 
state at any time after the period fixed by law for 
his leaving the same." 

As already remarked the highest court seemed always 
to be very liberal in its interpretation of laws relating to 
slavery. This broad construction of the slave code was 
referred to as "judicial legislation" by a member of the 
general assembly in 1847* in the following words: 

"Here is an illustration of judicial legislation. 
We have endeavored here to say, that no bequest 
of freedom to a slave shall take effect after the death 
of an owner . . . but the judges are opposed 
to this law and they are endeavoring by every mode 
to evade its operation."! 
In 1840 there came up to the Court of Appeals the noted 
Carmille case.§ A slaveowner, Carmille, had died leav- 
ing a will which with reference to his slaves provided 
that they should be set free if possible. If they could 
not be legally emancipated they were to be conveyed 
in trust to certain trustees who would allow them to hire 
their time, paying only a nominal sum to the trustees. 

*Columbia Daily Telegraph, Dec. 6, 1847. 

t'lhis particular criticism, however, applies specifically to the act 
of 1841 discussed below. 

§2 McMullan (Law), 454: Carmille vs. Adm'r's of Carmille et al. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 173 

This was unquestionably in conflict with the poHcy of 
the statutes on the subject of emancipation. Persons 
interested in the estate brought suit on the ground that 
the earnings of a slave belonged to his owner, in this case 
the heirs. The court held that the will of the testator 
was not contrary to the principles of the act of 1820 and 
was not in violation of the state's policy towards the negro, 
and that the will ought to be carried out. 

This decision seems to have gone a step too far. It 
aroused the sentiment of the legislature and caused the 
passage of the sweeping act of 1841.* This act shows 
that there were reasons other than the mere policy of 
preventing an increase in the number of free negroes in 
the state. It made void all bequests, deeds or trusts 
of slaves made with the stipulation that they be removed 
from the state and emancipated; it prohibited all gifts 
with secret or expressed understanding by which slaves 
should be remo\cd from the state and set free; and pro- 
vided that the donee might be held responsible to the 
heirs and next of kin for an accounting of the value of 
slaves so transferred by the donor; it nullified all bequests 
or trusts of slaves with a \iew of holding them in nominal 
slavery, but allowing them to act as free persons; it, also, 
prohibited any devise or bequest of property from being 
held in trust for the benefit of slaves. The statute de- 
pended for its due enforcement upon the provision that 
any person attempting to administer a will and carry 
out such provisions could be held financially responsible 
by heirs or other beneficiaries. 

There was one point, however, while not so important, 
that the lawmakers overlooked, and the court in 1860 
took occasion to uphold the validity of an emancipation 
where an owner himself took his slaves out of the state 
and set them free. In 1844t the court decided that the 
act of 1841§ arrested the ope ration of a will made in 1839 

♦Statutes at Large, XI, 168. The authority for the above statement 
will be found in the case of Morton vs. Thompson, 6 Richardson 
(Equity), 374, decided in 1854. 

til Richardson (Equity), 447: Willis vs. Joliffe. 

§1 Richardson (Equity), 61: Gordon vs, Blackman. 



174 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

that certain slaves should be removed from the state 
and emancipated by the executors of the estate of the 
deceased, since the will had not been carried out prior 
to the passage of the act, on the ground that no legal 
right can be vested in a slave. But in another case, in 
1851, t the court apparently reversed itself by declaring 
that a will allowing practical freedom, while nominal 
ownership was retained, was valid. 

The act of 1841 was intended apparently to close every 
avenue of approach to emancipation. These laws are 
not always of course to be taken as a final indication of 
public sentiment. There was evidently a large class of 
persons who honestly desired to see a less severe policy 
pursued. Their views probably cannot be better ex- 
pressed than in the clear and rugged style of Justice 
O'Neall. In 1845, he said:* 

"I think its policy [i. c., of the legislature against 
emancipation] so questionable that it ought to be 
repealed. A law, evaded as it is, ar.d against which 
public sentiment, within and without the state, 
is so much arrayed, ought not to stand. It is better 
by far, that a wise and prudent system of emancipa- 
tion, like that of 1800, should exist, rather than that 
unlicensed emancipation according to pri\ ate arrange- 
ment should take place. 

"What is there in the policy of the law of South 
Carolina to forbid emancipation by an owner, of 
a faithful, honest, good slave? Have we anything 
to fear from such a liberal and humane course. I 
should be sorry to believe that our domestic insti- 
tution of slavery required any such restrictions 
upon the rights of the owners. Indeed, where any- 
thing is pushed to extremes injury is done to it; and 
that is now the case of the act of 1820 and other 
kindred provisions in other acts. They are con- 
tinually thrust in our faces by those who undertook 
to meddle with matters which do not concern them, 

t3 Richardson (Equity), 431: Broughton vs. Tclfcr. 
*Strobhart (Law), 547: Vinyard vs. Passalaigne. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 175 

as evidence of our injustice and our sense of error 
in our slave system. 

"Until fanaticism and folly drove us from that 
position the law of our state had uniformly favored 
emancipation by owners, of their slave property, 
with such limitations and guards as rendered the free 
negro not a dangerous, but a useful member of the com- 
munity, however humble he might be. It is time 
we should return to it and say to all at home and 
abroad, we have nothing to fear from occasional 
emancipation." 

While South Carolina cannot be set down as a community 
in which emancipation was often sought by masters for 
their slaves or that the small slaveholders or the non- 
slaveholding class very much desired increased oppor- 
tunities for this class of the population, for they saw no 
other method of police control, still there were doubt- 
less many evasions of the law and slaves were allowed 
to be de facto free. Heirs might claim their property 
but doubtless they often regarded the desire of the re- 
cently deceased relative. Or, if the slaves were allowed 
to go free in the lifetime of the owner, there was but little 
probability that they would ever be reduced to serfdom 
again. Judge O'Neal in his work on the Negro Law in 
South Carolina^ says of the laws against emancipation 
and their evasion: 

"Like all of its class, it has done harm instead of 
good. It has caused evasions without number. 
These have been successful by vesting ownership in 
persons legally capable of holding it, and thus sub- 
stantially conferring freedom, when it was legally 
denied." 
The instances of emancipation are necessarily to be 
thought of as comparatively few, probably fewer than the 
above quotation would seem to imply. The chief ob- 
jection to the law prohibiting emancipation was in that 
it prevented all opportunity, or tended to prevent it, 

tP. 11, 



176 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

toward a peaceable and satisfactory gradual emancipa- 
tion of those best fitted to exercise such freedom with 
broadest legal opportunity: however, it is probable that 
this would ha\e made slower progress in South Carolina 
than in some other of the Southern states. 



CHAPTER XIX 
The Free Negro 

It is probable that at an early period there were free 
negroes residing in the colony. It does not seem likely, 
however, that many came into the state in any other 
condition than as slaves. But doubtless setting them 
free came as a sort of careless use of the negro's services, 
or because he had in instances proved to be sufficiently 
useful to deserve reward. There were unquestionably 
a few free negroes in the cokmy when the first slave code 
of 1712 was framed; for the latter, in section 1, defines 
as slaves all who were then held as such or who should 
hereafter be sold or bought, except those who could prove 
that they ought not to be held in slavery. Less than 
ten years prior to the Re\olution the Charleston grand 
jury had the following to say of them:* 

"We present as a grievance, the bad practice of 

free negroes and mulattoes being suffered to pass to 

and fro without any certificate or badge of their 

being frt^, by which means many runaway slaves 

are suffered to pass as free." 

The first legislation dealing specifically with the free 

negro as distinguished from the sla\e was passed in 

1794t and i^rohibited the immigration of free negroes 

into the state and directed that any so ofYending should 

be transported when ce tlu\- came. This was renewed in 

*South Carolina Gazette, Nov. 9, 1767. 
tStatutcs at Large, VII, 433. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 177 

1800 by an act* which also prohibited the introduction 
of slaves from other states. 

For a long time the free negro was a sort of non-de- 
script so far as his status legally and socially was concerned. 
But after some time the control of this class of persons 
not subject to the slavery system gave concern. Their 
number had gone on increasing by additional eman- 
cipations from year to year. In 1790 there were 1,801 
free negroes in the state, 3,185 in 1800, in 1820 6,826,t 
in 1860 9,914. 

The whites usually looked upon the possibilities of the 
free negro's situation for insurrectionary purposes as 
being very great. Hence on November 30, 1819, the 
house of representatives adopted, in committee of the 
whole, the following resolution :§ 

"That it is expedient to prohibit the further in- 
troduction of free negroes in this state." 

It was in 1820 that the general assembly prohibited 
any further emancipation. This was part of a definite 
policy of the state to prevent, as far as possible, any in- 
crease in the number of this variety of the population. 
As a companion piece of legislation there was another 
provision^ embraced in the same act to prohibit the im- 
migration of free negroes into the state. Any free negro 
entering the state from the outside was to be arrested 
and taken before a magistrate who was to direct him to 
leave the state and in case he failed to do so within fifteen 
days he was to be fined $20, a process which could be 
repeated indefinitely. It is not probable that many 
free negroes came. Gov. Geddes had said in his message 
of 1820: 

"In connection, however, with this subject, I deem 
it proper to inform you that a number of free persons 
of color have emigrated and are daily emigrating to 

♦Statutes at Large, VII, 436. 

tSchaper (p. 393) accounts for the large increase from 1790 to 1820 
by the emancipation by the Quakers of their slaves. 
^Southern Patriot, Dec. 3, 1819. 
^Statutes at Large, VII, 415. 



178 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

and settling in this stale. The poUcy of our country 
forbids the increase of this class of persons among 
us, and under existing circumstances imperatively 
calls for the adoption of the strongest measures to 
prevent it, and it may be deemed a duty to oppose 
at the threshold everything likely in its consequences 
to disturb our domestic tranquility." 
But what seems to have had more influence on the legis- 
lators is thus told in the legislative news items in the 
Charleston Courier of December 12, 1820: 

"Three interesting papers from an unknown writer 
under the signature of a 'Carolinian' were laid on 
the desk of the members of the State legislature a few 
days since . . . reprobating in bold and energetic 
language the evil policy of continuing to admit in 
such numbers, free persons of color to settle amongst 
us. . . . The statements and parts detailed in 
these papers had excited much attention at Columbia." 
We have already called attention to the profound 
impression that was made by the Vesey plot in Charles- 
ton. The only legislative acts that can be cited as due 
entirely to this excitement were those made with a view 
to the further restriction of the free negro. The seamen 
acts, already referred to, were passed to prevent any 
pernicious activity of any free negroes who were members 
of the crews of visiting sea-going vessels. Every free 
negro, from fifteen to fifty years old, if he was not a native 
of the state or had not been a resident of the state for 
five years, was made by this act,* liable to af\ annual tax 
of $50. This same act provided that every free male 
negro over fifteen years of age should have a guardian 
who in law was a "next friend" or "prochein ami." This 
guardian was to be "a respectable freeholder" of the 
district in which the negro lived. It should be his duty 
in becoming the guardian of this ward to go before the 
clerk of court of that district, giving his certificate that 
the negro in question "is of good character and correct 

♦Statutes at Large, VII, 461. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 179 

habits," and then to signify in another signed statement 
his acceptance of the guardianship of said negro. Any 
free negro failing to provide himself with the necessary legal 
guardian was to be treated as a free negro entering the 
state.* 

In the Sumter clerk of court's office is to be found an 
old record book, the first of its kind evidently for that dis- 
trict, for the act of 1822 was the first of such enactments; the 
book has the title "Guardians of Free Negroes." This par- 
ticular book covers the years 1823-1842. In 1823, when 
the law first went into effect, there are twenty guardian- 
ships recorded. The largest number recorded after this 
is five in 1840, there being none recorded in some years. 
In another book in the same office are to be found lists 
of children of free negroes certified to by the guardian. f 

The guardian was to be to the free negro what the master 
was to the slave. This was the result of the effort to re- 
quire every free negro to have some white person who would 
vouch for, or be responsible for, the negro. The extent 
of this responsibility was not great except in legal actions. 
There is every reason, however, to believe that any white 
person who took a sufficiently kindly interest in a free 
colored man was a source of protection to him. Advice 
as to his business affairs, attention in illness, or reproof 
for misconduct would naturally be supposed to be the 
proper services rendered such a colored ward by his guard- 
ian. The quasi-authority of the guardian could probably 
be enforced by a threat to withdraw his guardianship; 
though the law does not indicate whether this could be 
withdrawn at will or not. It was not intended that the 
guardian should in any way limit the freedom of the negro 
to move about from place to place, or to trade or to hire 
himself. By the act of 1835§ the free person of color was 
forbidden to carry arms except with a written permit from 
his guardian. 

*For a sample of free negro guardianship papers see appendix. 

jBook K, p. 67; July 25, 1838. In the archives at Columbia is 
preserved a book containing an original list of the names of the free 
negroes of Charleston. It is called the "Free Negro Book." 

IStatutes at Large, VII, 470. 



180 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

It would be interesting to know how, when this act was 
passed in 1822, the body of negroes then free secured pro- 
tection of the necessary guardian. But if they were 
agreeable, honest and orderly they probably found no 
great difficulty in acquiring a guardian among the families 
of their former owners or employers. He may in some 
instances have even rendered slight services. There would 
be every reason to believe that free negro men often grew 
up without such legal formal acceptance of a guardianship 
by a white person. But if any occasion arose which legally 
necessitated a guardian, as for example the collection of a 
debt due the negro, the white person could be found who 
would accept. There was no law holding the guardian 
in any way financially or otherwise responsible for the con- 
duct of his ward. There w^as likely, however, pressure 
of public sentiment in that direction. 

The legal status of the free person of color may now be 
described in substance. He was tried for crime before 
the same kind of court as that provided for the trial of 
slaves; he was subject to the same kind of penalties — cor- 
poral punishment — with the possible addition of a fine; 
his testimony could not be accepted in court against a 
white person, though a slave was a competent witness 
against a free negro; he had full right to acquire, hold and 
transfer property;* he might and did often own slaves. f 
The right of free negroes to hold property, particularly 
property in slaves, was thus defended by the Charleston 
Courier of December 8, 1835: 

"The projected denial of the right of slave owner- 
ship [debated in the legislature] is another measure 
of obviously mistaken policy. His right to hold slaves 
gives him a stake in the institution of slavery and 
makes it his interest as well as his duty to uphold it. 
It identifies his interests and his feelings in this particu- 

*2 McMullan (Law), 472: Bowers et al. vs. Newman. 

tl Hill (Law), 123: Cline vs. Caldwell. One hundred and twenty-six 
slaves were owned by free negroes of Charleston in 1860. Booker 
Washington (Outlook, 93, 107) estimates that $1,000,000 worth of 
properly was held in Charleston by free negroes, one family of them 
owning §80,000 worth of property, including thirty-six slaves. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 181 

lar with those of the white population, and we can 
imagine no sufficient reason for the severance. The 
hardship, too, of the case is worth consideration — the 
right has not only been enjoyed for years but in many 
cases since the enactment of our law against manu- 
mission it has been the only means of placing husband 
and wife under one roof and in the bosom of one family 
— and we cannot relish the idea of compelling the 
husband to sell his wife or the parent the child." 
The best authoritative statement of the legal status, 
rights and privileges of the free negro may be found in the 
Harden case coming up to the Court of Appeals in 1832 
from Chester district.* A free negro, according to the 
testimony of other white men, had been unmercifully and 
without cause beaten by a white man. The case reached 
the highest court on the objection that an indictment for 
assault upon a negro could not lie. The important part 
of the decision is as follows: 

"Free negroes without any of the political rights 
that belong to a citizen are still, to some extent, re- 
garded by the law as possessing both natural and civil 
rights. The rights of liberty, life and property belong 
to them and must be protected by the community in 
which they are suffered to live. They are regarded, 
in law, as persons capable of committing or receiving 
an injury; and for the one they are liable for punish- 
ment, and for the other they are entitled to redress." 

"For to no white man does the right belong of cor- 
recting at pleasure a free negro. The peace of society 
is as much broken by an assault upon him as it is 
upon a white man. Like the latter, he has his pas- 
sions, and with the means of attack and defense in 
his possession, if the law refused to protect him, he, 
too, at last, might be driven to repel force by force. 
The only difference in the law as to indictments for 
assaults and batteries on free white men and free 
negroes, seems to me to consist in the different justi- 

*2 Spears (Law), 128: State vs. Harden. 



182 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

fication which would excuse an assault and battery 

on the one or the other. Free negroes belong to a 

degraded caste of society; they are in no respect 

on an equality with a white man. According to their 

condition they ought by law to be compelled to demean 

themselves as inferiors, from whom submission and 

respect to the whites, in all their intercourse in society, 

is demanded ; I ha^•e always thought and while on the 

circuit ruled that words of impertinence and insolence, 

addressed by a free negro to a white man, would 

justify an assault and battery." 

The free negroes as individuals very probably always 

had friends, but as a class they were often distrusted by 

the whites and scorned by the slaves. To the well kept 

house slave, the phrase "no 'count as a free nigger" was 

the bitterest reproach that could be cast upon him by his 

fellows or his master. Perhaps one of the most reliable 

statements with reference to his standing in the community 

is to be found as an incidental remark in the case of Vinyard 

vs. Passalaigne, decided in 1845:* 

"Every one knows, that the free negroes in South 
Carolina are far, very far, from being a class envied by 
our slaves. Generally they are worse off in every re- 
spect ; they throw themselves under the sheltering wing 
of some benevolent white man, and instead of being 
fomenters of insubordination and rebellion among 
slaves, they pursue here a directly contrary course." 
A favorable estimate of the condition and character of the 
free negro can be seen in an editorial in the Charleston 
Courier of December 9, 1835: 

"We are free, too, to confess that the conduct of 
the free colored people of this city, if not of the state, 
has been for the most part so correct, evincing so much 
civility, subordination, industry and propriety, that 
unless their conduct should change for the worse, 
or some stern necessity demand it, we are unwilling 
to see them deprived of those immunities which they 

*2 Strobhart (Law), 536. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 183 

have enjoyed for centuries without the slightest det- 
riment to the commonwealth." 
Weston, writing in 1857, f expresses doubt as to the free 
negro being so profligate as is often charged because the 
fact that their numbers are uniformly maintained would 
seem to indicate the opposite. 

There was a general tendency to discriminate against 
the free negro. In Marion no free person of color was al- 
lowed to follow regular employment without a permit, 
granted upon the payment of a fee of $1.50.* Charleston 
laid a tax of $10 on free negro males from twenty-one to 
sixty years of age "who are carrying on any trade or art 
or being a mechanic. "§ E. R. Laurens found the opposi- 
tion, particularly in Charleston, to the free negro to be 
in the fact that he competed to some extent in the skilled 
trades.^ In 1848 by the industrial census of the city of 
Charleston we find with reference to free negroes that there 
were 42 tailors and cap makers, 27 carpenters and joiners, 
17 boot and shoe makers, and 196 colored free women as 
seamstresses and mantuamakers — more than all other 
seamstresses combined. ft 

Free negro males from eighteen to fifty 3'ears of age 
were subjected to a poll tax of two dollars, for failure 
to pay which the sheriff was authorized to sell him for a 
period of service not more than five years, sufficient to 
pay the costs.** 

While competition with the white laboring class might 
cause dissatisfaction with the free negro of Charleston, 
where about eight per cent, of the colored population was 
free, it does not appear tha t the hostility to the free negro 

tProgress of Slavery, p. 25. 

*Marion Star, Feb. 2, 1858, Adv't City Ordinance. 
§2 Spears (Law), 623: State vs. City Council of Charleston, in 1844. 
tPamphlet Address by E. R. Laurens before the Agricultural Society 
of South Carolina in 1832. 

tfFigures from Phillips: Slave Labor in the Charleston District, 
Political Science Quarterly, XXII, No. 3. 

**An old gentleman told the writer of having seen a negro sold for 
failure to pay his taxes. 



184 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

was any more bitter in Charleston, if as bitter, than it was in 
other parts of the state. It was from other parts of the 
state, where farming and cotton raising chiefly was the prin- 
cipal industry, and hence where there was practically no 
competition offered by them, and where the free negroes 
were fewer in number, that a most unfriendly feeling toward 
them existed. The case was coldly summed up in a letter 
by R. G. Harper in the First Annual Report of the Coloni- 
zation Society. His view was that the free negro is inferior 
socially, improvident, liable to corrupt and poison the minds 
of the slaves who envy his condition, works occasionally, 
assists slaves in theft, becoming thus a medium for illegal 
trading, aftords opportunity for unlawful meetings and in- 
surrectionary movements. This view can be compared 
with that of a "Carolinian,"* who thinks that mulattoes 
form a sort of barrier between the slave and white acting 
as a preventive of insurrections. 

We have already quoted some of the more favorable 
opinions concerning the free negroes. It will now be ap- 
propriate to give a few extracts typical of the unfavorable 
estimate of them as a class. The latter form the larger 
part of the contemporary comments on this subject. Here 
may be quoted a mild editorial accusation against this 
class from the Camden Journal of November 19, 1850: 

"The free negroes as a class are the most miserable 
set of creatures upon earth ; having the right of prop- 
erty in our midst, besides enjoying many privileges 
which our slaves do not have, they possess the means 
of corrupting, and do corrupt and destroy in a moral 
and physical sense, the actual value of that species 
of property which is the source and cause of so much 
strife in the Federal Government, and which is likely 
to involve us in a second Revolution." 
The newspaper comments on the free person of color have 
the ring of prejudice and insincerity about them. While 
the free negro was amenable to the magistrates' court 
still the grand jury of Marlborough district in 1850 took 
cognizance of the rather obstreperous conduct of a certain 

•Pamphlet: "Refutations against the Southern and Western States." 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 185 

free negro in that community using the following language:* 
"We present that James Young, a Free Negro, is 
in the habit of carrying concealed deadly weapons, 
and has made threat to take the life of Gilbert Oxend- 
inel, also a free negro, and we pray the court to take 
such measures as will bring the said Young to Summary 
justice." 

Another more biased illustration of the newspaper talk 
will suffice. The editorial management of the Rising 
Sun of Newberry developed an extremely strong dislike 
for this species of the population. In an editorial cf May 
19, 1858, some of the things complained of are: renting of 
houses to free negroes, thus becoming a rendezvous for 
crime — "Brothels, greasy spots. Black Marks;" hiring to 
them horses and buggies; permitting them to career around 
to the envy of the slaves; collecting of negroes on public 
corners and places in the town; he winds up with, "Oh, vi 
et armis per cowhide." The editor in 1860 became a 
candidate for the legislature and one of the planks of his 
platform was to require each free negro to choose a master 
and re-enter slavery. He was not elected but probably 
this idea of his lost him no votes. This same feeling, whether 
with good reason or not, was shared by the grand jury 
of Union district in 1855. It said:t 

"We further present as a public nuisance the fact 
that a number of worthless free negroes harbor in 
and around this village without any visible means of 
support." 

To the writer the picture of the free negro as it is here 
given appears for the following reasons to be somewhat 
overdrawn: First, the comments are usually generali- 
zations, with but few specific charges and rarely is an indi- 
vidual case cited to illustrate the charge. Unfortunately 
no records of the courts for the trial of slaves and free 
negroes were kept. Hence what would give us the best 
clue as to the number of criminals and the frequency of 
crime among the free negroes is not available. Secondly, 

*MS. records Marlborough county. 
tMS. records of Union county. 



186 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

in contrast with these comments unfaxorable to the free 
negroes stands other evidence, typical extracts of which 
were quoted, that gives the free negroes a reputation for 
orderUness and thrift. Some of this e\ idence, too, is from 
sources the most rehable and least likely to be biased. 
Thirdly, the recollections of sur\ivors of the ante-bellum 
period substantiate this favorable opinion of the free negroes 
as a class. This kind of evidence, while the weakest 
critically however, is worth considering as corroborative 
testimony. The writer has talked with numbers of the 
older citizens of the state and in reply to specific inquiries 
they almost uniformly remember the free negroes, as per- 
sons who rarely caused disturbance of the peace or became 
by their shiftlessness a charge to the community. Fourthly, 
many of the unfavorable opinions, particularly the editorial 
comments of newspapers in the extravagance of their 
statement, often betray a tone of prejudice and insincerity. 
Whether the free negroes were the serious menace to 
the peace and welfare of the community that they are fre- 
quently represented to have been may be doubted. But 
the readiness of the whites to charge any disorderly con- 
duct among the negroes to the agency of the colored free- 
men must have operated as a check upon them, since it is 
reasonable to believe that they were aware of this suspicious 
concern with which the superior race watched their conduct. 
This hostility to the colored freeman began to crystal- 
lize into a definitely expressed policy. One of the plans 
of dealing with the free negro was deportation. "The 
Southern Rights Association," of Kershaw district, as 
early as 1850, took the following action:* 

"Resolved that the Chairman of the several Com- 
mittees of safety constitute a committee to circulate 
memorials to the Legislature of this State to provide 
the means for removing from her borders all free per- 
sons of color." 
Governor Seabrook, in his annual message of 1850, bowing 
to the popular bias, had the following to say of the character 
of the free negro and how to deal with him : 

*The Camden Journal, Nov. 5, 1850. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 187 

"Although the mind of the community has not 
been prepared by public discussion or perhaps by 
private interchange of views on the subject, yet it 
is my deliberate opinion that the period has arrived 
for the remoxal from the State of every free colored 
person who is not the owner of real estate or slave 
property. This population is not only a non-pro- 
ductive class, but it is, and always has been, essentially 
corrupt and corrupting. Their longer residence among 
us, if the warfare between the North and South is to 
continue, will eventually generate evils difificult of 
eradication. Possessing, in an unlimited degree, the 
right of locomotion, they can in person bear intelli- 
gence in a day, from one section of a State to another, 
or through the post office mature their own plans of 
villainy, as well as execute orders emanating from 
foreign sources. There is, indeed, too much reason to 
believe, that at this moment they are made to occupy 
the situation of spies in our camp, and to disseminate 
through the entire body of our slave population the 
poison of insubordination, prepared in the great north- 
ern laboratory of fanaticism." 
The part of the governor's message recommending deporta- 
tion was referred to tlie committee on the colored popula- 
tion.* Its report was unfavorable to the scheme. Its 
impracticability is summed up by the committee in somewhat 
the following way : the plan is novel and has not been under 
discussion by the people; it would recognize the principles 
of the colonization societies not favored in South Caro- 
lina; it would work an undue hardship on the free negroes 
and particularly in a property way; the expense is consider- 
able — would it be paid out of confiscation of the free negro's 
property or state funds? if in the latter way it would prove 
too great a burden; it would put the state in a bad light in 
the eyes of the world. The problem they suggested in 
dealing with the idle and dissolute freeman of color they 
say "can be met with judicious penal legislation sufficient 
to repress the evil without res orting to the extreme measure 

* House Journal, 1850, p. 37. 



188 Control of Slaves in South Carolma 

indicated by his Excellency."* Nothing further in a 
legislative way seems to have come of the plan. 

This recommendation of the governor seems to have been 
somewhat premature and not much more appears to have 
been said with reference to it until near the close of the 
decade. In the fall of ISSSf the grand jury of York dis- 
trict in its presentment recommended that the state ap- 
propriate sufficient funds for the removal of the free negroes 
to Liberia, giving those who desired to remain the alter- 
native of choosing a master and becoming a slave. And 
at the same term of the court at Ihiion the grand jury said 
of them:§ 

"To strengthen our peculiar Institution (slavery) 

and to remove a source of competition from among 

our slaves, we recommend the passing of a law to 

clear the State of all free persons of colour." 

In the following spring the Williamsburg grand jury of a 

district having only thirty-seven free negrces by the census 

of 1850 had this to say of this questionable class: 

"We further present the free negroes of the district 

as a nuisance and recommend that the Legislature 

pass some law that will have the effect of relieving 

the community of this troublesome population." 

At the spring term of the Newberry court I the grand jury 

made recommendations as to the disposal of the free persons 

of color similar to that made in York the preceding fall. 

The excitement after the Brown raid in Virginia has al- 
ready been referred to; the feeling vented itself largely 
on the free negro. He was looked upon as the most likely 
point and source of trouble. The general assembly be- 
came the forum for a part of the discussion for a solution 
of the apparent danger. To the old idea of transporta- 
tion in 1850 was added that of re-enslavement referred to 
in the two grand jury presentments quoted above. One 

*Report published in the Black River Watclinian (Sumter), Dec. 
21, 1850. 

t Legislative news notes, Charles toti Courier, Nov. 25, 1858. 
§IV1S. records of Union county. 
IMS. records of Newberry county. 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 189 

plan was transportation with re-enslavement as the alter- 
native; another was to make enslavement the penalty for 
crimes not now capital for free negroes; still another was 
complete and entire re-enslavement, allowing the colored 
freeman to choose his master, while some desired them all 
to be sold indiscriminately. Bills embodying all of these 
different views were introduced but nothing further than 
discussion came of them.. Old negroes of that day who are 
still living recall the talk of this time about re-enslaving 
the free negro and feel now that this agitation was taken 
advantage of by the white man to hold it over the head 
of the colored freeman as a threat. 

There was a general feeling prevalent that the free negro 
was an anomaly, that he prevented the homogeneity of 
slavery as an industrial institution or system of paternal 
control. He was neither citizen nor dependent of the state. 
This was at least one reason for the agitation. The slave 
owner felt him as a competitive producer. The class of 
non-slaveholding whites assisted in maintaining the system 
of slaver}^ for they felt that there was no other adequate 
system of controlling this heterogeneous mass of racially 
degraded class of the population; naturally they felt that 
the colored freeman did not come under this controlling 
power and was a menace to the welfare and peace of the 
community. 

To this must be added the agitation of the slavery ques- 
tion by outsiders which provoked the people into state- 
ments not accurately representative of the feeling of the 
people at large or the general public sentiment. 



190 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 



CONCLUSION 

One of the striking things about slavery in South Caro- 
Hna was the conservatism of the supericn- race toward any 
substantial modification of the institution. Amended, of 
course, from time to time, the code of 1740 remained for 
one hundred and twenty years the organic sla\e law of 
the state. However, the system of slavery, which was crude 
in its beginnings, slowly underwent changes that marked 
its development and gave to it a fixed form as a social and 
economic organi^^ation. A good illustration of this growth 
is the evolution of the patrol. Many of these modifica- 
tions both in legal enactment and practical operation were 
in the direction of an amelioration of the condition of the 
blacks: kidnapping of free negroes, at first not prohibited, 
was later made a crime; the murder of a negro by a white 
person, which until 1821 was punishable only by a fine 
and imprisonment, was after that made a capital offense; 
the court for the trial of negroes was modified so as to 
prevent some of the glaring injustice of the earlier proced- 
ure; privileges of trading and hiring their time were legally 
denied to slaves, but as time went on apparently the viola- 
tions of these laws became more common and were passed 
unnoticed. On the other hand some of the changes, in 
so far as granting the inferior race advantage were concern- 
ed, were reactionary: manumission, unrestricted until 1800, 
had after that to be brought about by legal permission, 
and was prohibited entirely in 1820; strictures on the free 
negroes prohibiting their entrance into the state and even 
proposing their re-enslavement became more marked as 
time went on; at first the whites were forbidden to teach 
sla\es to write, and later as the result of the abolition move- 
ment they were also forbidden to teach them to read. 

The explanation of this conservatism is to be found 
chiefiy in the need of an adequate police control for the 
inferior race which slavery provided. The financial in- 
terests of the large planters are sufficient to explain why 
they sought to perpetuate such a system of labor. But 
why should the non-slaveholders, who formed the majority 



Control of Slaves in South Carolina 191 

of the white popuhition , have assisted in upholding and main- 
taining the slavery status of the negro with its attendant 
inconveniences, such as patrol ser^•ice, when they must 
have been aware in some measure at least that as an eco- 
nomic regim.e it was a hindrance to their progress? Was 
it not because they felt that their personal security and 
that of their families depended upon an arrangement 
which gave the superior race a means of control that they 
imagined could not be evolved with the inferior race living 
under any other status? The horror inspired by the pos- 
sibility of any great number of unattached negroes found 
expression in the newspaper criticisms of the conduct of 
the free negroes. 

In this study of South Carolina slavery the writer has 
found nothing to indicate that there was any movement 
or any serious discussion of the advisability of abolishing 
slavery or de\ising any plan that would eventually lead 
to it. Apparently no anti-slavery leaders like those in 
Virginia or North Carolina e\er flourished in South Caro- 
lina. The Quakers, who were opposed to slavery, left the 
state in the early part of the nineteenth century, or gave 
up their scruples about it. The German settlers in Orange- 
burg and Lexington districts sought to abstain from slavery 
but drifted with the current and became slaveholders. 
Some doubtless deprecated slavery in an academic way, 
and some even maintained in practice their belief that 
slavery was wrong. Whether there was no tendency 
toward agitation or public sentiment suppressed it, would 
be difficult to determine. There is little reason to believe 
that such discussion would have secured an intelligent 
hearing. 

There was a decided tendency on the part of the benevo- 
lently disposed before 18vS0 to better the condition of the 
negroes by religious teaching and by encouraging the owners 
to allow them such privileges as would be consistent with 
their relation to the whites. Some, like Judge O'Neall, 
favored an opportunity being allowed for the emancipation 
of exceptionally worthy slaves. But the abolition inter- 
ference from the outside checked every movement that 
had any suggestion of progress in this direction, and set a 



192 Control of Slaves in South Carolina 

social stigma and legal punishment tipon him who was so 
imprudent as to call in cjuestion any feature of the character- 
istically Southern institution. 

It is not to be inferred tluit if there had been no outside 
meddling South Carolina shixery would ha\e been very 
much modified. The presumption is decidedly the other 
way, for the slave had not become less valuable to the slave- 
holder toward the close of the slavery period, as was the 
case in Virginia and North Carolina. In most respects 
South Carolina was at one with the gulf states in her atti- 
tude toward slavery and her policy in controlling the 
inferior race, as well as in her financial interest in slavery. 

Something has already been said as to the distribution 
of the slaves over the state. Slavery conditions in the 
uplands w^ere not the same as in the lowlands. In the 
former the prevailing rule was a small farm with few slaves, 
the owner usually living on the farm with his slaves, and 
the white population in the community outnumbered 
the blacks. In the lowdands the large plantation with 
many negroes under an overseer and few whites w^as the 
type. Possibly, then, South Carolina represented practi- 
cally e^'ery variety of condition in which negroes lived in 
the South. Again it will be seen that Charleston afforded 
a most interesting \ariety of conditions under which the 
Carolina negro lived. The free negro, the slave who was 
allowed to hire his time, the slave under partial restriction, 
the slave under complete oversight of the master — ^ach 
of these classes was represented. It is to be admitted that 
Charleston was not entirely successful in the control of 
these classes but afforded a curious combination of pro- 
gressiveness and conservatism from which either those 
who desired further restrictions or those who advocated 
a more liberal policy, could draw illustrations. 



Appendix 193 

APPENDIX 



Documents Illustrative of Slavery in South Carolina 

(1) 

DEED OF MANUMISSION 

Deed Book C, page 190, Clerk of Court's office, Marion County. 
Martin, James ) 
Emancipates Rose j 
Know all men by these presents That I James Martin of Marion 
District now in my proper memory & senses do of my own free will & 
desire emancipate & set free my negroe woman named Rose & I do 
by these presents discharge & forever renounce any right title or claim 
to the said Negroe woman named Rose & I James Martin do nominate 
and appoint Elias Martin & Thomas Collins as guardians for the safe 
protection & carrying into Execution this my free will & desire. 

Given under my hand & seal this sixteenth day of December in 
the year 1805. 

Signd seald & deliverd in the presents of 

Thomas Barns. ^" 

Dredzels Reynolds. J^^mes x Martin. 

mark 



The State of South Carolina ) 
Marion District j 

Before me Robert Hodges Justice Quorum for said District personally 
appeared Thomas Barnes & made oath that he saw James Martm 
make his mark to the within instruement of writing & deliver the same 
to the within namd Rose also that he saw Dredzcl Reynolds subscribe 
his name as wittness with himself to the same. 

Sworn to before me this 16th day of December 1805. 

Robert Hodges R Thomas Barnes. 

We hereby certify upon the Examination on Oath of James Martin 
the Owner of a certain Slave named Rose a black woman about nme- 
teen or twenty years of age & satisfactory proof has been given to us 



194 Appendix 

that the Said Slave is of a good character and is able & capable of gain- 
ing a livelihood by honest Means. 

Witness our hand this 16th day of December, 1805. 
Recorded 24th December 1805 & Examined by 

his 
Thomas x Collins. Sam Cooper, Regr. 
mark 
his Robert Hodges, J. P. 

John X Allman. 

mark Thos. Barnes, 

his 
Elias X Martin. Dredzels Reynolds, 

mark 



(2) 
GUARDIANSHIP OF FREE NEGRO 

Record Book "Guardian of Free Negroes" Office of Clerk of Court 
Sumter County. [One document of many taken at random.] 
South Carolina ) 
Sumter District j 

I do hereby certify that I have known James Gayman a free man of 
color for fifteen or twenty years, and that as far as has come within my 
knowledge or belief he is of a good character and correct habits, this 
28th Sept., 1835. 

J. N. Cantey. 

South Carolina ) 
Sumter District j 

Know all men by these presents, that I Jared N. Cantey, a free holder 
of the District and state aforesaid do hereby accept of the guardian- 
ship of James Gayman, a free man of color above the age of fifteen 
years and who now lives and resides in the district of Sumter. 
28th Sept. 1835. 

In presence of /, N. Cantey, 

Jas. M. Dargan. 



(3) 
BILL OF SALE OF SLAVES 

Deed Book N page 140. Clerk of Court's Office Marlborough County 

State of South Carolina | 

Marlborough District j 

Know all men by these presents that I Joseph L. Reid of the State 

of North Carolina Aloor County have this 3rd day of February, 1829, 

Sold bargained and delivered and by these presents do bargain Sell 



Appendix 195 

and deliver unto William Adams Senior of the District aforesaid a 
certain Negro woman named Amcy aged about twenty-five years, 
together with her two children named Lydia and Rhody the eldest 
aged about two years and the youngest aged about eight months which 
negroes I do hereby warrant and forever defend unto the said William 
Adams his heirs Executors and administrators free from the lawful 
claim or claims of any person or persons whatsoever, And further I 
do warrant the before mentioned negroes to be sound and healthy free 
from sickness and infirmities, And it is hereby acknowledged, that I 
have this day received the sum of Three Hundred and Seventy-five 
dollars in full payment for said negroes the receipt and payment whereof 
is hereby fully Acknowledged to be paid and received. 

In Wittness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and Seal day and 
date first above written. 

In presence of Alex. McLeod. Joseph L. Reid [L. S.] 

Nelson Gibson. 

State of South Carolina ) 
Marlborough District j 

Personally appeared before Nelson Gibson who after being duly 
sworn on the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God Saith on Oath that he 
did see Joseph L. Reid Sign Seal and deliver the within instruement of 
writing to William Adams Senr. for the use and purpose therein Men- 
tioned and that himself and Alexander McLeod in the presence of each 
other affixed their names as Wittnesses to the due execution thereof. 

Sworn to and assigned before me this 5th day of May 1829. 

Jonathan Adams. Nelson Gibson. 
J. P. [L. S.] 



4 
CONTRACT BETWEEN SLAVE OWNER AND OVERSEER 

[MS. preserved in South Carolina Historical Society Collection.] 

Articles of Agreement between John Ball and John Penny made the 
1st day of January, 1813 — 

Article 1st. John Ball agrees to pay John Penny at the rate of five 
hundred Dollars per year for wages as Overseer and Manager of both 
Hyde Park and Kensington plantations. 

2nd. John Ball will allow John Penny one-third of the hogs and one- 
third of the Poultry raised on Hyde Park plantation— provided he 
continues the whole year in the employ of John Ball. 

3rd. John Penny shall have the privilege of keeping two horses of 
his own on said plantation to be fed only with rice flour & straw and 
Oats when he raises some on the place — 

4th. John Ball will allow John Penny the use of two milch cows 
for milking. 



196 Appendix 

5th. John Penny finding his own cook will be allowed at the rate 
of seventy Dollars for her. 

6lh. John Ball will ever reserve to himself the right to discharge 
and turn ofT John Penny at any time of the year if he gets drunk, or 
improperly abuses his trust — or mal-trcat the Negroes under his care — 
And if that should unfortunately be the case — John Ball will only pay 
for the time actually served at the above mentioned rate & in the same 

way for his Cook & boy, as they will of course go with him 

And the shares in the Hogs and Poultry will not then be allowed to 
John Penny 

John Penny will be allowed a boy to wait him iS: allso bread kind of 

the Plantation for his use 

J. W. Ball 
John Penny. 

(5) 
CERTIFICATE OF BEING WHITE 

Deed Book C, page 156, Marion County Clerk of Court's Office. 

State of South Carolina, Georgetown District: 
Catian Drigers ) 
her Affidavit ) 

Personally appeared before me Philip Bethea one of Justices of the 
peace for said district Catian Drigers who being duly sworn on the 
holy Evangelist of Almighty God saith that she knew pilisha Bruinton 
many years and known her always to pass for a white woman and be- 
lieves her to be an English woman & clar of any Negro blood Indian 
or Mulatto. 

Sworn to before me and assigned this 7th of May, 1785. 

her 
Phil Bethea Catian x Drigers. 

mark 

Recorded 27th of December, 1805, and examined by Sam Cooper 
Regrs. 

6 
PETITION OF FREE NEGRO TO RE-ENTER SLAVERY 

Note: The following is one of at least three petitions that were 
before the Legislature in 1859 of free negroes desiring to re-enter slavery 
(Charleston Courier, Dec. 2, 5, 20, 1859). Reprinted by permission 
from Documentary History of American Industrial Society, Vol. II, 
page 163. 

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the General 
Assembly of South Carolina: 
The Humble petition of the Undersigned William Bass, sheweth unto 



Appendix 197 

your honorable bodies, that he is a free person of color, residing in the 
District of Marlborough, in the state aforesaid, and that he is desirous 
of entering into the condition of slavery. That his position as a free 
person of color, a negro, is more degrading and involves more suffer- 
ing in this State, than that of a slave who is under the care protection 
and ownership of a kind and good master. That as a free negro, he 
is preyed upon by every sharper with whom he comes in contact, and 
that he is very poor, though an able-bodied man, and is charged with 
and punished for every offence guilty or not, committed in the neigh- 
borhood; that he is without house or home, and lives a thousand times 
harder, and in more destitution, than the slaves of many planters In the 
district; for these reasons and many others, unnecessary here to enumer- 
ate, your petitioner prays: 

That he be permitted by some action of your honorable bodies to 
become a slave of, and owned by Mr. Philip W. Pledger, who has con- 
sented to receive him if he can do so lawfully and who your petitioner 
is confident will make him a humane master and protector, and who 
owns his stepfather and some other relations. 

his 
William x Bass, 
■mark 

Signed in mj' presence this December 14, 1859. 

S. J. Townsend. 

South Carolina, Marlborough District: 

Personally appeared before me S. J. Tov/nsend and make oath that 
he saw William Bass sign as his own free will and voluntary act without 
any constraint whatever the foregoing petition, and begged him, said 
deponent, to have it presented to the General Assembly. 

S. J. Townsend. 
Sworn to before me this December 14, 1859. 

P. M. Coll, Clerk. 

I, P. W. Pledger, hereby consent if the Legislature will legalize the 
act, to become the owner of William Bass, as prayed for in the foregoing 
petition. 

P. W. Pledger. 
Signed in my presence December 14, 1859. 

5. J. Tow?tsend. 



198 Appendix 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 



I. SECONDARY SOURCES 

1. GENERAL HISTORIES OF THE UNITED STATES. 

All histories of the United States treat of slavery in a general way. 
Of thelarger histories mention may be made of those by Schouler (J. S.), 
Von Hoist (H.), McMaster(J. B.),Rhodes (J. F.) and the American Nation 
Series. Schouler's "History of the United States" is decidedly partisan 
and has almost no good word for the institution. This work is concerned 
chiefly with the political narrative of national history and refers to 
slavery only as a part of that narrative. Von Hoist's "Constitutional 
History of the United States" is fuller and gives a better view of the 
social and economic side of slavery in so far as it affects the political 
movements of the time. McMaster's "History of the People of the 
United States" undertakes to give an insight into the every day life 
on the slave plantation. His facts are good, though for the most part 
they leave the impression that they are somewhat exceptional. Rhodes' 
"History of the United States 1850-1877" is fuller and recites incidents 
of slave life connected with the slavery controversy. "The American 
Nation" series, edited by A. B. Hart, is perhaps more fair and unbiased 
concerning slavery than any of the others, and at the same time relates 
most of the facts. 

2. SOUTH CAROLINA HISTORY. 
(a) Histories of the State. 

A complete critical history of South Carolina remains to be written. 
McCrady's (E.) work, published within the last ten years, consists of 
four volumes, one dealing with the Proprietary government to 1719; 
a second deals with the Royal government of the colony to 1776; the 
last two volumes bring the account through the Revolutionary period 
to 1783. This magnificent work is well known and will always be an 
authority on that period. Hewat's (Alex.) "History of South Carolina 
and Georgia" is the oldest, bearing 1779 as the year of its imprint. It 
was fairly good for the time but is now recognized as not having very 
great value. It was reprinted by Carroll (B. R. ) in 1836 under the 
title "Historical Collections of South Carolina," in which an eft'ort 
was made to correct errors in the former edition. Ramsay's (D.) 
History of South Carolina in two volumes, published in 1809, is still 
read but its chief interest is in war and Indian stories. The second vol- 
ume, however, is devoted in part to biographical sketches and a dis- 
cussion of the life and industries of the people. He relies largely upon 



Appendix 199 

Hewat. Robert Mills, in 1826, published his "Statistics of South Caro- 
lina," containing bits of general information as to the resources, animals, 
plants and geography of the state. W. J. Rivers, in 1856, in his "Sketch 
of the History of South Carolina," blazed the way for real historical 
work in this field. It is based on careful research and shows an ap- 
preciation by the author of the value of his sources. More than one- 
third of the book is taken up with the appendix composed of reprints 
of valuable documents. This was followed by the same author in 
1874 with another effort, in a pamphlet, "Chapter in Early History of 
South Carolina," in which the author indicates the proper lines for 
further investigation. In 1860 appeared W. G. Simms' "History of 
South Carolina" intended apparently to be a handbook on the history 
of the state based on other secondary works. It brings the full account 
down through the Revolutionary War but adds a supplementary 
chapter of forty-five pages dealing with the period down to 1860. 
The history of a section appeared in 1859 with Logan's (J. H.) "History 
of Upper South Carolina." It extends only to the Revolutionary- 
War, consisting of a narrative of incident and fact. The second vol- 'k 
ume was never published; the manuscript is in the possession of the 
University of Wisconsin. 

(b) Monographs on South Carolina History. 
Among the later day monographs on some phase of South Carolina 
history must be mentioned the excellent piece of work by E. L.Whitney, 
in the Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies (Sen 13, Nos. 1 & 2, 1895), "Govern- 
ment of the South Carolina Colony," which undertakes to study the 
organic development of colonial governmental policy of this particular 
colony. The same author has made an exhaustive bibliographical 
study of the colonial history of South Carolina (Amer. Hist. Ass'n 
Reports, 1894, pp. 563-586). We are indebted to him for a critical 
estimate of the work done in South Carolina history up to the time of 
his writing. Whitney's work on Colonial Government has been done 
over again by D. D. Wallace in a doctoral dissertation at Vanderbilt 
in 1899, "Constitutional History of South Carolina from 1725 to 1775." 
The author undertakes by a careful study from the Journals of the 
Assembly to show the constant assertion of influence of the Commons 
Assembly in governmental affairs. The Justin Winsor prize essay 
in 1900 (A. Hist. Ass'n Rep'ts, 1900, Vol. I, pp. 243-463),by W.A.Schaper, 
is a careful study of "Sectionalism in South Carolina," showing how the 
upper section of the state secured to itself recognition by representation 
in the lower house of the Assembly. Soon after the appearance of 
McCrady's History there appeared another work by W. Roy Smith, 
"South Carolina as a Royal Province." Of a later period, D. F. Hous- 
ton's valuable study of "Nullification in South Carolina," in the Har- 
vard Historical Studies (No. 3), must not be passed over. 



200 Appendix 

(c) County Histories. 

Several of the different localities of the state have had their stories 
told in "County Histories." These usually consist of interesting 
narratives of incident and reminiscence, and genealogical tables. 
While most of the facts are fairly reliable, still as a class they cannot be 
said to be of great historical value. Exception must be made of 
A. S. Salley's "History of Orangeburg County," and Bishop Alex. 
Gregg's "History of the Old Cheraws," which show the handiwork of 
the critical scholar who has some appreciation of the relation of cause 
and effect. They are all disappointing in their almost total lack of 
mention of slavery. A mention of the authors and titles will have to 
suffice: Judge O'Neall, "Annals of Newberry," completed before the 
war between the sections. It was afterwards reprinted and the ac- 
count brought down to about 1890 by Jno. A. Chapman. Sellers 
(W. \V.),"A History of Marion County." Thomas (J. A. W.),"A History 
of Marlborough." Landrum (J. B. O.), "History of Spartanburg 
County." The same author has compiled a "Colonial and Revolution- 
ary History of Upper South Carolina," a rather pretentious title for 
the actual results attained. Kirkland (T. J.) & Kennedy (R. M.), 
"Historic Camden." The authors promise a later volume that will 
bring the account down from about 1800 to the present. In this 
connection must also be mentioned Mrs. Ravenel's (St. Julien) at- 
tractive little book, "Charleston, the Place and the People." 

(d) Biography. 

The list here given is not, nor is it intended to be, exhaustive but 
most of the persons whose biographies are here referred to had some 
connection with the institution of slavery. At the head of the list for 
historical value stands Theo. D. Jervey's recent "Robery Y. Hayne 
and his Times." The life of another noted Carolinian, Wm. Lowndes, 
is, considering the available sources, very well written by Mrs. St. 
Julien Ravenel. Three biographies of Calhoun may be mentioned, 
one by Jenkins, another by Van Hoist; the latest and perhaps best is 
that by Gaillard Hunt in the Crisis Series. The correspondence of 
Calhoun has been edited by Jameson (Amer. Hist. Ass'n Reports, 1899, 
Vol. 2) and the papers of Calhoun by Cralle. Mrs. H. H. Ravenel has 
given us a generous insight into the life and times of Mrs. Eliza Lucas 
Pinckney, one of the most interesting of pre-Revolutionary women. 
Trent's (W. P.) "Life of W. G. Simms" is interesting not only in the life 
of one who was prominently connected with Carolina affairs but also 
in the coloring it lends to Carolina slavery. Wight man's (W. M.) 
biography of William Capers is the life of the first superintendent of 
the Methodist missions to the slaves; but few authoritative references 
are given. W. H. Trescot gives us a picture of the writer of the famous 
minority report to the Legislature in 1856 on the re-opening of the slave 
trade, in a pamphlet," Memorial of J. J. Pettigru." Judge J. B. O'Neall's 
"Bench and Bar of South Carolina," an ante-bellum two-volume 



Appendix 201 

publication, gives readable sketches of the judges and leading lawyers 
of the state during the first half of the nineteenth century. 

(e) Histories of Religious Denominations. 

For collecting data on religious privileges allowed to slaves recourse 
was had to a few histories of denominations in the state. Howe's 
"History of the Presbyterian Church in South Carolina" is exhaustive 
and apparently an accurate piece of work, though it is disappointing 
as to mention of the negro. Dalcho's (F.) "Church History of South 
Carolina," published in 1820, is an account based on liberal quotations 
from official sources of the Episcopal church; it gives an account of the 
early efforts to evangelize the Southern slave. Bernheim's "German 
Settlements and the Lutheran Church in the Carolinas" is also worthy 
of recognition, though no mention is made of slavery. A. M. Shipp's 
"History of Methodism in South Carolina" is a good authority on the 
subject;' it gives full information from original sources of the work of 
that denomination among the colored population. Tupper's (H. A.) 
collection into one volume of a series of papers, "History of the First 
Baptist Church of South Carolina," read at the bicentenary of that 
church, refers to work among the slaves. But by far the best secondary 
source on the religious life of the negro, though few authorities are 
cited, is W. P. Harrison's "The Gospel among the Slaves." After 
giving space to a sketch from C. C. Jones' "The Religious Instruction 
of Slaves" (noticed below) a full account is given of the early Methodist 
missionaries to the slaves. Perhaps its best feature is the local color 

it gives to slave life. 

(f) Maps. 

For maps the most easily available and perhaps best are Mills, 
"Atlas of South Carolina," published In 1825, and Carey, "American 
Atlas," published in 1823. 

3. SLAVERY— SECONDARY SOURCES, 
(a) Monograph Literature. 

(1) Specific — Limited in Scope. 
For comparison of the institution of slavery and the status of 
the negro in South Carolina with that of other states recourse may 
be had to some excellent monograph literature on slavery. The at- 
tempt to study slavery as limited by state lines began with Brackett's 
(J. R.)"The Negro in Maryland"(Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, Extra Vol. 

VI., published in 1889), giving its legal and practical workings. We then 
have a shorter and less complete work on the"History of Slavery in North 
Carolina," by J. S. Bassett (J. H. U. Studies, XVII, Nos. 7 & 8, 1899); 
also "Anti-Slavery Leaders of North Carolina" (J. H. U. Studies, X\ I, 
No. 6), by the same author. J. C. Ballagh's "History of Slavery in 
Virginia" {]. H. U. Studies, Extra Vol. XXIV), while it is an accurate 
and thorough piece of work on the legal side of slavery, has very little 



202 Appendix 

to say of ihe praclical workings of the syslem. H. S. Cooley has given 
a necessarily -hort but yood study of slavery in New Jersey (J. H. U. 
Studies, Uth Series, IX & X). N. D. Harris has given us an account of 
the status of the negro as an "indentured servant" in a Northern state 
in "The History of Negro Servitude in Illinois." It furnishes also a 
study of the growth of abolitionism there and its inlluence in the develop- 
ment of political parties in the Northwest. A similar piece of work 
noted for the extensiveness of the sources examined is E. R. Turner's 
"The Negro in Pennsylvania," the Justin Winsor prize essay for 1910. 
VV. S. Drury's rather tedious but worthy monograph on the Southamp- 
ton Insurrection contains a complete narrative of the Nat Turner 
rebellion, the most noted slave insurrection in the South. W. E. B. 
DuBois contributes, in the Harvard Historical Studies (IV), an accurate 
and exhaustive study on "The Suppression of the Foreign Slave Trade 
to the United Slates of America." In a smaller and less exhaustive 
way W. H. Collins has undertaken to throw some light on another in- 
teresting phase of slavery in "Domestic Slave Trade of the Southern 
States." S. B. Weeks, in "Southern Quakers and Slavery" (J, H. U. 
Studies, Extra Vol. XV), has one chapter on slavery, the rest being de- 
voted to a study of the Quaker, a sect always opposed to the slavery 
system. The second chapter of M. B. Hammond's "The Cotton 
Industry" has a penetrating study of the relation of the rise of the cotton 
industry to the growth of slavery. Mary S. Locke's monograph "Anti- 
Slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the 
Prohibition of the Slave Trade" is worthy of mention. A "History 
of Liberia," by J. H. T. McPherson (J. H. U. Studies, Ser. 9, No. 10) 
has something to say of the colonization movement in America. 

(2) More General Works on Slavery. 
U. B. Phillips, In two volumes of the "Documentary Economic History 
of American Industrial Society," has reprinted a quantity of source 
material on slavery while but few of the documents are local Carolina 
sources. Part V of H. V. Ames' "State Documents on Federal Re- 
lations" contains reprints and citations of numerous valuable original 
sources on slavery. G. S. Merriman's "The Negro and the Nation" 
is a series of interesting chapters on the varied phases of the negro 
question written in a popular style. H. Wilson's "Rise and Fall of the 
Slave Pow-er in America," published in 1875, undertakes to trace from 
the Northern standpoint the growth of slavery and the controversial 
agitation which it brought on, with abundant illustrative material. 
A similar work is the "Political History of Slavery," by W. H. Smith, 
in which large place is given to the politically controversial side of 
slavery. Neither of the last two mentioned have really contributed 
anything of value to the subject. The last, on the whole the best, fair 
presentation of the subject, though small in compass, is A. B. Hart's 
"Slavery and Abolition" in the American Nation series. R. I. Mallard's 
"Plantation Life before Emancipation," published in 1892, is a narrative 



Appendix 203 

of recollections of conditions during the Slavery period, one chapter 
being devoted to slave life in South Carolina. Similar to this is I. E. 
Lowery's "Life on the Old Plantation" (pub. 1911), being the author's 
recollection of his own life as a slave boy in Carolina. 

(b) Miscellaneous, Magazine Articles, etc. 

1. Phillips, U. B. Racial Problems, Adjustments and Disturbances 

in the'Ante-Bellum South, in The South in the Building of the 
Nation, vol. IV, pages 198-241. 

A very clear and readable short account of almost every 
phase of slavery in the South, from its introduction to its abo- 
lition. 

2. Phillips. U. B. Origin and Growth of the Southern Black Belt, 

Political Science Quarterly, XXII, No. 3. 

3. Phillips, U. B. The Slave Labor Problem in the Charleston 

District, in Political Science Quarterly, XXII, No 3, pages 
416-439. 

4. Old South Leaflets, vol. VI, No. 140, Samuel Hoar's Expulsion 

from Charleston. (Reprints of documents bearing on the 
incident.) 

5. Siebert, W. H. The Underground Railroad, Amer. Hist. Review, 

I, 455; also Amer. Hist. Ass'n Reports, 1895, page 395. 

This author also has gathered his studies into a volume, "The 
Underground Railroad from Slavery to Freedom." 

6. Washington, Booker T. The Free Negro in Slavery Days, Out- 

look, 93; 107, September 18, 1909. 

7. Tillinghast, J. A. The Negro in Africa and America, Publications 

of the American Economic Association, Third Series, vol. Ill, 
No. 2, part 2. 

8. McCrady, E. Slavery in the Province of South Carolina, Amer. 

Hist. Ass'n Reports, 1895, page 631. 

9. . Vesey Plot, Atlantic Monthly, VII, 730-740, June, 

1861. 

10. Phillips, U. B. The Economic Cost of Slaveholding, Political 

Science Quarterly, XX, 257-275. 

4. SLAVERY IN THE WEST INDIES. 

In a study for the purpose of comparison of the origin of slave laws 
on the earher plantations of the West Indies and the communities 
of the American continent, recourse was had to that early (1808) though 
still recognized authority, Foyer's "History of the Barbadoes," and the 



204 Appendix 

still older (1794) Edwards' (B.) "History, Civil and Commercial of the 
British Colonies in the West Indies," a large part of which is taken up 
with a narrative of West Indian slavery. 

II. CONTEMPORANEOUS SECONDARY SOURCES 

1. TRAVELS. 
The observations of travellers who had never been in the South until 
the visit, an account of which they write, and who were not unduly 
biased, form a critically valuable source of descriptive information on 
the peculiarly Southern institution. Among the best known and most 
important is F. L. Olmstcad's "Seaboard Slave States." These travels, 
written for a New York newpsaper about 1853 and later printed in 
separate form, are, as compared with many others, unbiased observa- 
tions gathered from careful inquiry. While his writings reveal much 
of the evils of slavery still he succeeds in telling much of the good as 
well as the bad in a perfectly fair effort to narrate the whole truth. 
"My Diary, North and South," by W. H. Russel, a war correspondent 
of a London paper about 1863, during the conflict, Is well written, and 
while Its views of slavery are certainly unfavorable the only complaint 
that can reasonably be made is that probably he saw the worst side of 
it. G. W. Featherstonhaugh, an Englishman who travelled in America 
about 1834, has given his observations of the evils of the slavery system 
in "An Excursion Through the Slavery States." Another account 
hostile to slavery is J. S. C. Abbot's "North and South," written about 
1860; to his travels are appended speculations on the situation and its 
remedy which gives it the coloring of pre-concelved notions. Alexis 
de TocquevIlle,"Democracy in America," has a good chapter on slavery, 
unfavorable to it, but in the main accurate. Perhaps the least biased 
and most instructive picture of conditions is B. Hall's "Travels in 
America," 1827; this Englishman showed an intelligent and keen 
insight as an observer. More favorable to the South's view is the inci- 
dental and almost accidental Interest of the geologist, Charles Lyell, 
on a trip for geological study In America during the early forties. The 
account of his first trip gives only a few pages to slavery In and around 
Charleston, while his "Second Visit to the L'ultcd States" is full in its 
observation on slaver^' in Georgia and other Southern states. The 
one important book written by a Northerner which the Southern gentle- 
man could read with no hurt feelings was Nehemiah Adams' "Southside 
View of Slavery," published in 1854. It appears that the author had 
preconceived prejudice against slavery but the completeness of his 
conversion arouses question as to whether he was not so thoroughly 
taken in hand by Southern hospitality that he had as one-sided a view 
of conditions as others whose views were unfavorable. The list of 
travels which throw light on Southern slavery is a fairly long one, but 
these are the best known and perhaps most careful observers. 



Appendix 205 

2. CONTEMPORARY WORKS ON SLAVERY. 
(a) Works Bearing on the Legal Phase of Slavery. 

1. Cobb, T. R. R. On Slavery. Savannah and Philadelphia, 1858. 

Consists of two parts, the first a historical summary of slavery 
and its condition among all peoples ancient and modern; the 
second is a good digest of the legal provisions concerning slavery 
as developed chiefij' by court decisions of the different states. 
A very valuable handbook on the law of slavery. 

2. Hurd, J. H. The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the LInited 

States. New York, 1858-1862. 

A sketch of the existing laws on slavery in the different states 
with some brief comment. 

3. O'Neall, J. B. The Negro Law of South Carolina Collected and 

Digested. Written "under a resolution of the State Agricul- 
tural Society of South Carolina." Afterwards submitted to the 
Governor and Legislature but never adopted. 1848. 

An excellent summary of South Carolina slave law with court 
interpretations in narrative style, and with notes and comment 
and even recommendations as to desirable changes. 

4. Wheeler, J. D. Law of Slavery. New Orleans, 1837. 

A good compendium of extracts from the state court decisions 
on the subject of slavery. 

(b) Works en Slavery, more or less Controversial. 

1. Adams, F. C. Manuel Pcriera. London; no date of publication. 

A highly colored account of the free negro arrested aboard a 
British vessel in Charleston. He makes out Manuel to be of 
Spanish descent. 

2. American Colonization Society Annual Reports, contains report of 

work and papers on the subject. 

3. Barnes, A. An Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery. 

Philadelphia, 1846. 

A statement of the biblical arguments for slavery. 

4. Bledsoe, A. T. Liberty and Slavery. Philadelphia, 1856. 

A scholarly summing up of the arguments on slavery ftom 
scriptural, natural and public necessity grounds in answer to 
the abolitionist arguments. 

5. Cairnes, J. E. The Slave Power, Its Character, Career and Prob- 

able Design. London, 1863. 

The arguments against slavery on economic grounds. 



206 Appendix 

6. Carey, . Sla\c Trade, Domestic and Foreign. Phila- 

delphia, 1853. 

Three suggestive chajUers on American slavery, accounting 
for its origin, growth and probable future from an economic 
point of view. 

7. Chambers, \Vm. American Slavery and Color. London, 1857. 

Written near the close of the slave regime, it deprecates ad- 
vantages allowed slavery in national politics. The possibility 
of re\olution is the only hope. It has also an extended ap- 
pendix of incidents illustrative of the worst side of slavery. 

8. Chamcrovzow. Anti-Slavery Society Publication. London, 1855. 

The usual autobiographic account of miseries of ill treated 
slaves. 

9. Channing, \V. E. Slavery. Boston, 1836. 

One of the most widely read books of the anti-slavery propa- 
ganda. It is less violent than other abolition literature and had 
circulation even in the South. 

10. DeBow, J. D. B. The Industrial Resources of the Southern and 

Western States, 3 vols. New Orleans, 1853. 

1 he standard historical source for the industrial and economic 
study of the ante-bellum South. 

11. DcBow's Review. New Orleans, 1846-1861. 

A magazine filled with the very best oi Southern thought on 
Southern questions. From this, the work just cited was compiled. 

12. Drew, B. The Refugee or the Narrative of Fugitive Slaves in 

Canada. Boston, 1856. 

A series of experiences of escapes after cruel treatment from 
Southern states. Probably worthless as a historical source 
except to give coloring to certain facts. 

13. Fletcher, . Studies in Slavery. Natchez, 1852. 

A labored abstract defense of slavery on scriptural grounds; 
without interest or value, that toward the close degenerates 
into a posit-ve philological bore. 

14. Goodwin, D. R. Southern Slavery and its Prospects. Phila- 

delphia, 1864. 

In the nature of a reply to an anti-slavery publication by the 
Bishop of Vermont. It is apologetic of slavery on scriptural 
grounds and other reasons usually noted. 

15. Grayson, W. J. The Ilirellni; and the Sla\ c. Charleston, 1856. 

A pro-slavery poem. 



Appendix 207 

16. Grimke, Sarah. American Slavery as It Is. New York, 1839. 

"A chamber of horrors," containing clippings, etc., of the worst 
cruelties of the system. 

17. Helper, H. R. The Impending Crisis in the South. New York, 

1857. 

A strong argument against slavery, meant as an appeal to the 
Southern non-slave holder to repudiate the system because it 
was industrially oppressive. 

18. Jay, Wm. Writings on Slavery (containing also a small volume 

by the same author, 1835, London, "Slavery in America"). 
Boston, 1853. 

His summing up of the legal and actual status of the free negro 
is good. His accounts of the colonization and anti-slavery 
societies are more an argumentative summary than historical 
narrative. 

19. Jones, C. C. The Religious Instruction of the Negroes. Sa- 

vannah, 1842. 

Part I is a historical sketch showing the source and progress 
of the early interest in the instruction of the negro. The rest 
of the book deals chiefly with the difficulties and needs of re- 
ligious instruction. Well written, and his facts seem to be based 
on good first hand sources, and used with some degree of critical 
discrimination. A good part of the book is devoted to religious 
conditions in South Carolina. The author was a Presbyterian 
missionary to slaves in Liberty county, Georgia, and speaks 
from a close acquaintance. 

20. Kemble, F. A. Journal of a Residence on a Georgia Plantation. 

New York, 1863. 

The classic description of a Southern plantation with slavery 
at its worst. There are attempts at intervals to tell things 
favorable to the institution but they are rare. 

21. Mellen, G. W. F. An Argument on the Unconstitutionality 

of Slavery. Boston, 1841. 

An effort made to prove that there is no basis of fact in the 
claim that the constitution guaranteed slavery. He quotes 
at length from pre-revolutionary writers, proceedings of the 
national constitutional convention, some of the state conventions 
(not S.C.) called to adopt the constitution, the Federalist papers 
and Marshall's decisions on national subjects, to bear out his 
argument and makes a calm and good case. 



208 Appendix 

22. Paulding, J. K. Slavery in the United States. New York, 1836. 

A pro-slavery argument by a Northerner. His description 
of slavery in the South is the slavery of Virginia. 

23. Pollard, E. A. Black Diamonds Gathered in the Darkey Homes 

of the South. New York, 1859. 

The lighter side of slave life in incident and story, to which 
is added an argument for the re-opening of the slave trade. 

24. Scabury, Rev. Samuel. American Slavery. New York, 1861. 

A broad, scholarly discussion going far back in history. Fair 
and critical in his views of slavery. 

25. Thornton, Rev. T. C. An Inquiry into the History of Slavery; 

Its Introduction into the United States; Cause of Its Contin- 
uance, and Remarks upon the Abolition Tracts of Wm. E. 
Channing, D. D. Washington, 1841. 

A defense of slavery as it existed, from teachings of scripture 
and history with some discussion of phases of the Texas question. 
Unimportant as to slave life and customs, mildly controversial. 

26. Van Evrie, J. H., M. D. Negroes and Negro Slavery. New 

York, 1861. 

A physiological study of the ethnography of the negro in his 
relation to other races, with a generous attention to the religious 
argument; sympathetic with the institution of slavery. 

27. Wallon, H. Dc I'Esclavage dans les Colonies pour servir d' 

Introduction a I'Histoire de I'Esclavage dans I'Antiquite. 
(3 vols.) Paris, 1847. 

Makes no reference to American slavery, but other works 
on American slavery refer to this for argument. 

28. Weston, G. M. The Progress of Slavery in the United States. 

Washington, 1857. 

An attempt to show from a logical study of slaver^' its hind- 
rance to the economic progress of the country and to point out 
how its spread through the domestic trade could be hindered 
by hedging it in with free labor, particularly in its westward ex- 
tension. The array of statistical facts and his method of pre- 
senting them are forcible. 

29. Welling, J. C. Slavery in the Territories (Amer. Hist. Ass'n 

Reports, 1891, 133). Originally written before 1860. More 
mention made of the early period of slavery. 

30. Wheat, . Philosophy of Sla\ery. Louisville, 1862. 

A curious medley of theology, philosophy and facts, highly 
colored by the opening conflict. 



Appendix 209 

31. The Pro-Slavery Argument — Four Essays. Charleston, 1852. 

(1) By Chancellor Harper: A strong abstract apology of 
slavery from the Southern viewpoint. 

(2) By Governor Hammond: More practical, a good de- 
fense. 

(3) By W. G. Simms: A sarcastic but correct criticism of 
Miss Martineau's Travels and Writings on Slavery. 

(4) Prof. Dew: One of the strongest expositions of the 
reasons for establishing and maintaining the slavery system from 
philosophical, practical, social and racial standpoints. Also 
a comprehensive study of African colonization in America. 

32. . Slavery Vindicated. Philadelphia, 1836. 

A simple and easily understood statement of the South's 
reasons for maintaining slavery and the ills to be expected from 
emancipation. Quotes arguments from Harper and Dew. 
Similar pamphlets to those contained in the Pro-slavery Argu- 
ment had appeared. 

^3. . The South Vindicated from the Treason and Fanati- 
cism of the Northern Abolitionists. Philadelphia, 1836. 

A discussion of the seething controversy, apolegetic for the 
South. 

34. . The Laws of Race as Connected with Slaves. Phila- 
delphia, 1860. 

Clear and shows good understanding of the whole question of 
race, giving ills of negroes in the North as well as in the South. 

3. PURELY ORIGINAL SOURCES. ^ 
(a) Pamphlets. 

(1) On Slave Insurrections. 

1. Slave Insurrections, by Joshua Coffin. New York, 1860. 

Anti-slavery pamphlets sketching briefly but inaccurately 
all slave insurrectionary attempts. 

2. An Account of the later Intended Insurrection among a Portion of 

the Blacks of this City. Published by Authority of the Cor- 
poration of Charleston. 1822. 

3. Reflections Occasioned by the Late Disturbances in Charleston, 

by Achates. 1822, (Probably Gen. Thos. Pinckney.) 

4. Pamphlet composed of a series of Articles on Slavery Provoked by 

the Vesey Insurrection in 1822, and first published in the South 
Carolina Gazette in October and November, 1822. 



210 Appendix 

5. Refutation of C'aliininics against the Southern and Western States, 

by a CaroUnian, 1822. 

Among other things it gives an account of the South Caro- 
Hna insurrections. An exceptionally good source. 

6. Proceedings of the Citizens of Charleston on the Incendiary Machi- 

nations now in Progress against the Peace and Welfare of the 
Southern States. 1835. 

Concerning the Charleston post-ofifice robbery. 

(2) On the Religious Phase of Slavery. 

1. There is a very valuable collection of twenty-two pamphlets bound 

in one volume on the Religious Instruction of Slaves, in the 
Collections of the South Carolina Historical Society. 

2. Proceedings of the meeting in Charleston, May 13-15, 1845, on 
the ReHgious Instruction of the Negroes, together with the Report 
of the Committee and the Address to the Public. 

A peculiarly valuable source. 

3. Practical Considerations, grounded on the Scriptures, Relative to 

the Slave Population in South Carolina, by Dr. F. Dalcho, of 
the Episcopal Church. Published in 1822, according to the 
statement of C. C. Jones. (Religious Instruction of Negroes, 69). 

4. Exposition of the View of the Baptists Relative to the Colored 

Population of the United States, by Rev. Richard Furman. 

5. Slave Population of South Carolina (in its Religious Aspect), by 

a Carolinian. 1823. 

6. Review of Dr. Adger's Sermon on the Religious Instruction of the 

Colored Population. Charleston, 1847. 

7. Episcopal Catechism for Persons of Color. Charleston, 1837, 

(3) Miscellaneous Pamphlets. 

1. Collections of Historical Society of South Carolina, 5 vols. Extra 

publications. Contains annual addresses before the society, 
papers on subjects in South Carolina history and reprints 
of records. 

2. A South Carolina Protest against Slavery: Being a letter from 

Henry Laurens, Second President of the Continental Congress, 
to his Son, Col. John Laurens. Charleston, Aug. 14, 1776. 

An explanation of his reason for having introduced a bill in 
the Legislature to prevent teaching negroes to read and write 
and from engaging in certain pursuits. 



Appendix 211 

3. Speech of Senator Smith in Congress in 1820 on Slavery. Re- 

printed from Annals of Congress. 

4. Domestic Slavery: Letters passed between Rev. Richard Fuller, 

of Beaufort, S. C, and Rev. Francis Wayland, of Providence, 
R. I. Gives both sides of the controversy on slavery, from the 
moral and religious point of view. New York, 1845. 

5. Address by Edward Laurens before the Agricultural Society of 

South CaroHna. 1832. 

6. Address before the United Agricultural Society of South Carolina, 

by W. B. Seabrook. Charleston, 1827. 

Considerable reference to slave management. 

7. Doom of Slavery in the Union. Speech by John Townsend. 

Charleston, 1860. 

8. Letter of R. Y. Harper, First Annual Report American Coloniza- 

tion Society. 

9. Address of James Barbour, Esq., to the Agricultural Society of 

Albemarle County, Virginia. Reprinted in Charleston Mercury, 
December 12, 1825. 

(b) Official Sources. 

(1) Printed materials. 

1. Statutes at Large of South Carolina, 12 vols. 

All the laws governing the colony from the first and enact- 
ments of the state legislature are arranged chronologically 
with marginal notes, table of contents and index. Undertaken 
by legislative authority in 1836 and since added to from time 
to time after the same scheme. 

2. Court Reports, Law and Equity, of South Carolina. 

Not known as the "Supreme Court" at first. The court was 
divided into a law court and an equity or chancery court, the 
reports of each being published separately. 

3. Journals of the General Assembly of South Carolina. 

The Journals from 1680 to 1782 are fragmentary. Some have 
been published by the South Carolina Historical Commission. 
The manuscript journals are complete from 1782 to 1831. 
Since 1831 the journals have been officially published each year 
soon after adjournment. 

4. Messages of the Governors to the successive General Assemblies 

each year may be found reprinted in almost any secular news- 
paper of the year and many can be found only in newspapers. 



212 Appendix 

5. Report of the Committee of the Legislature on the Colored Popu- 

lation. December 7, 1858. 

On petition of the mechanics of Charleston to the Legislature 
to prohibit negroes from working in the skilled trades. 

6. South Carolina General Assembly (House of Representatives), 

1857, Report of the Special Committee of the House of Repre- 
sentatives on so much of the message of his Excellency, Gover- 
nor James H. Adams, as relates to Slavery and the Slave Trade. 
Columbia, 1857. 

Contains also the minority report of the committee recom- 
mending against the reopening. 

7. Engrossed Ordinances of the Town of Camden, 1792-1908. 

Mostly manuscript compiled after 1861. 

8. City Ordinances of Charleston, 1783-1832. 

Two contemporary compilations. 

9. Report of Proceedings City Authorities of Charleston for year end- 

ing September 1, 1837. Robert Y. Hayne, Mayor. 

10. Report containing a Review of the Proceedings of the City Au- 

thorities of Charleston, for the year ending September 1, 1839. 
H. L. Pinckney, Mayor. 

11. Report of William Porcher Miles on Charleston City Affairs for 

1857. 

12. Kennedy and Parker: An Official Report of the Trials of Sundry 

Negroes Charged with an Attempt to Raise an Insurrection in 
the State of South Carolina. Charleston, 1822. 

Published by order of the Negro Court itself, it gives an ac- 
count of each slave's testimony, all evidence and sentence in 
each case, also a summarized list of those punished. 

13. United States Census Reports, 1790-1860. 

14. Congressional Documents: Reports of Committees, No, 80; 

27th Congress, 3rd Session. "Free Colored Seamen — Ma- 
jority and Minority Reports." January 20, 1843. 

One of the most valuable sources of facts connected with 
the enforcement of the seamen acts at Charleston. 

(2) County Records — Manuscripts. 
Nine counties, representative in as far as possible of every section 
of the state, were visited, where any of the criminal records of the county 
were preserved, for an investigation as to how the laws with reference 
to slaves were enforced. 



Appendix 213 

Many of the county records fell a prey to the vandalism of General 
Sherman's army in 1865. In others, like Marion county, the housing 
room being inadequate, the criminal records were destroyed, in the 
belief that they could serve but little purpose after the person charged 
with crime had died or been executed. 

The criminal court records are contained in a minute-book called 
the Sessions Journal giving a list of all cases, jurors, presentments of 
grand juries, orders of the court, etc. Often, as in Sumter and Marl- 
borough, the original papers, indictments, affidavits, pardons, etc., are 
carefully preserved and indexed. 

Frequent breaks in the records occur owing sometimes to removals 
to new court-houses which have recently been erected. 

1. Darlington District ("district" now known as "county"). 

The criminal court records go back to 1812 and are fairly 
complete down to 1860, with the exception of a break from 1820 
to 1840. The book containing the record for these years is in 
a crumbling condition from exposure in a damp cellar. 

2. Greenville District. 

Journals of the Session Court are preserved from 1817 to 
1860 with a break from 1824 to 1836. They are neat, legible 
and were well kept. 

3. Kershaw District. (County seat at Camden.) 

The minutes of the Criminal Court go back to 1789 and are 
nearly complete down to 1822, when a break occurs extending 
to 1845. The remaining records to 1860 are very poor and un- 
satisfactory; no attempt at accuracy or ordinary care was 
evidenced. 

4. Marlborough District. 

Sessions Journal, 1846-1859, neat and legible. The index, 
also neatly kept, goes back to 1812, giving nature of offenses and 
disposal of the cases. Nearly all of the criminal papers are 
preserved, some of the earliest being for the opening years of 
the nineteenth century. 

5. Newberry District. 

An index to the Sessions Docket of criminal cases back to 
1840 is preserved. The Sessions Journals are preserved back 
only to 1857. 

6. Spartanburg District. 

The Sessions Journals are preserved from 1808-1860 with 
the following breaks: 1817-20; 1824-1830; 1835-50. The 
criminal papers are well preserved. The index gives cases as 
far back as 1800. 



214 Appendix 

7. Sumter District. 

Minutes of the criminal court, sessions docket and papers 
relative to criminal casts are preserved nearly complete from 
1827 to 1854. The criminal papers are unusually well kept 
and well preserved. 

8. Union District. 

Sessions Journals preserved from ISOO to 1860 with breaks 
from 1811 to 1819 and from 1831 to 1853. The index begins 
with 1800. The criminal papers and some of the records were 
not available in the summer of 1912 (at the time of the writer's 
visit) owing to their being packed for removal to the offices 
in the new court-house. 

/ 9. Williamsburg District, 
w The minutes of the criminal court from 1817 to 1840 are frag- 

mentary and incomplete. All of the records were poorly kept 
and fail often to show how cases were disposed of. All of 
the criminal records from 1840 to 1860 are preserved. 

(c) Newspapers. 

Many of the newspapers referred to below were in scattered collections 
of files for only one or two years or even less while some of them are 
fairly complete and for longer periods of time. The dates do not 
indicate that all numbers of that year are available but are intended to 
show that papers covering that period approximately are preserved 
nearly complete. The best collection is to be found in the Charleston 
Library. A large scattering collection may be seen at the University 
of South Carolina in Columbia. There are many broken files at points 
over the state in the hands of individuals. 

(1) Files in the Charleston Library. 

1. South Carolina and American Gazette (Charleston), nearly complete. 

1766-1780. 

2. Royal Gazette (Charleston), 1781-82. 

3. South Carolina Gazette and Country Journal (Charleston), 1766-75. 

4. City Gazette and Daily Advertiser, 1789-1832 (Charleston). 

5. Gazette of South Carolina, 1783-1801, almost complete. 

6. Columbian Herald (Charleston), 1785, '86, '95, '96. 

7. Morning Post (Charleston), 1786, 1787. 

8. The Times, 1800-1821. 

9. Charleston Courier, 1803-1860. 

10. Weekly Carolina Gazette, 1810-1821, 

11. Southern Patriot, 1819-1840. 

12. Charleston Mercury, 1823-1860. 

13. Evening News, 1850-1856. 

14. South Carolina Gazette, 1732-1779, almost complete. 



Appendix 215 

15. Winyaw Intelligencer, 1825, 1827, 1832. 

16. Georgetown Gazette, 1806-1807. 

(2) Files in the University of South Carolina. 

1. Camden Journal and Southern Whig, 1835. 

2. Camden Weekly Journal, 1853. 

3. Camden Journal, 1827, 1828, 1835, 1837, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1850. 

4. Camden Commercial Courier, 1837, 1841. 

5. Columbia Telescope (five numbers), 1838. 

6. Tri-Weekly (Columbia), scattering, 1851. 

7. Daily Carolinian (Columbia), scattering, 1851-1853. 

8. The Daily Telegraph (Columbia), 1847, 1848, 1851. 

9. Carolina Planter, 1840. 

10. The Farmer and Planter, 1855-1861. 

11. The Black River 'Watchman (Sumter), 1850. 

12. Sumter Watchman, 1855-1856. 

13. Sumter Banner, 1854-1855. 

14. Pendleton Messenger, 1826-1848. 

15. Keowee Courier, 1857-1858. 

(3) Private Collecfious. 
This list includes only files to which the writer had access. Several 
other more or less important files, in the hands of persons who kindly 
oflfered their use, but of which lack of time forbade perusal, could be men- 
tioned. 

1. Southern Times and State Gazette (Columbia), 1835-1837. 

2. The Southern Chronicle (Columbia), 1840, 1841, 1847, 1848. 

3. Columbia Free Press and Hive, 1831. 

4. Abbeville Banner (scattering), 1846-1848, 1852-1860. 

5. The Independent Press (Abbeville), 1854-1856. 

6. The Rising Sun (Newberry), 1858, 1859, 1860. 



216 Appendix 



BIOGRAPHICAL 

The writer was born in Newberry County. Soutli Caro- 
lina, in 1879. He was graduated with the degree of 
Bachelor of Arts in 1898 from Newberry College. Fol- 
lowing graduation he taught in the public schools of his 
native state for six years. The years 1907-8 and 1908-9 
he spent as a scholastic fellow at Vanderbilt University, 
Nashville, Tennessee, pursuing graduate courses in History, 
I'xonomics and English, and received the degree of Master 
of Arts in 1908. During the period 1909-1913 he was in- 
structor in History at Vanderbilt, meantime securing data 
for this dissertation and pursuing further courses in His- 
tory. In 1913 he received the degree of Doctor of Phi- 
losophy from Vanderbilt University. At present (October, 
1914) he is Professor of History and Economics in Emory 
and Henry College, Emory, Virginia. 



LRGFe'15 



